E-Mails Indicate Rove, Gov't Forced ICANN to Nix '.Xxx' Domain

[johnnie]

Sorry, it's Faux


"Newly released e-mails allege U.S. government officials pressured a leading Internet authority into voting against creating a kind of red-light district for adult Web sites.

The apparent involvement of the U.S. Department of Commerce, President Bush's chief political operative Karl Rove and others is significant.

If true, it means the U.S. government violated terms of a complicated arrangement it has with ICANN, the Internet authority that voted 9-5 two weeks ago not to OK the .xxx proposal.

What ICM Registry, the company that proposed the top-level domain, wanted was permission to distribute Web addresses that ended in .xxx to be used exclusively by adult entertainment sites.

The proposal won support from Wired Safety and Wired Kids, the Internet Content Rating Association and other child-safety groups because of the way it was expected to make it easier for authorities and parents to police the Internet.

Detractors said it just would make it that much easier to find porn.

More:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196608,00.html


I'm sorry, I can only find this story on Faux

On edit: Is this old news :shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. It actually makes sense that Rove wants to nix this

Preventing the .xxx domains by BushCo preserves their plan to take control of the Internet under the guise of "protecting the children".

[xchrom]

2. and wins them god like proportions from the fundie lunatics.

[crikkett]

3. violate, schmiolate.

If true, it means the U.S. government violated terms of a complicated arrangement it has with ICANN, the Internet authority that voted 9-5 two weeks ago not to OK the .xxx proposal.

Does anyone care anymore? Or am I just falling into a GOP trap.

[johnnie]

4. I know..lol

I guess the government violating *anything* just isn't news any longer. :shrug:

[bananas]

5. LBN post has link to emails as pdf

story om eweek.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2300468

[johnnie]

8. Ok

Thanks :hi:

[lindisfarne]

6. Would they allow .SEX? (In all their hurry to keep kids from seeing porn,

one has to wonder why they would object to a .XXX domain which could be blocked easily. No, it wouldn't block porn on other sites (or medical info. which some conservatives think is porn) but it would block some of it from curious kiddy eyes. (Just how do Europeans raise their kids with topless women on billboards and in magazines? must be on the minds of every conservative - but I'm sure they believe Europe is the den of all evil (freedom fries, and all that).)

Of course, I'm forgetting that this lessens the need for gov't control of the internet so that porn isn't accessible.

("old news" is allowed in General Discussion :) )

[Fridays Child]

7. Hmm. Why would Dobson be against ".xxx?"

To suggest that it makes porn easier to find is ludicrous on its face. By that argument, he should also be against brick and mortar porn shops being clearly advertised as such. Instead of worrying about unsuspecting kids and others entering them without understanding what kinds of stores they were, he would be concerned that clearly marking them as porn shops might allow people to find them more easily.

So, I repeat my question: Why is James "compare schlongs in the shower with your son" Dobson against ".xxx?"

[Ian David]

10. For the same reason Ralph Reed was against the anti-gambling bill

Someone bought him off.

Follow the money.

Shake Dobson's pants hard enough, and a lobbyist will fall out.

[Fridays Child]

9. Actually, porn sites should be required to use a ".gop" extension.

Just sayin'....