Times Online and AP
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
The agency that regulates web addresses has rejected, for the third time, a proposal to give adult websites their own top-level domain. The plan, which has been under discussion for several years, would have involved pornographic sites moving from .com or .co.uk sites to addresses ending in .xxx.
Religious groups, along with many in the adult-entertainment industry, had criticised the plan. This week the Canadian government also warned the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers that if it approved the plan it would have to start regulating content.
Supporters of the idea argued that adult sites could be better regulated if they were kept within their own domain. They also said that web users would be less likely to encounter pornographic material accidentally and that parental filters could recognise unsuitable sites more easily.
Opponents within the porn industry were concerned that the proposal, while billed as voluntary, would later become compulsory and would confine adult content to a ghetto. Religious groups said that the .xxx domain would legitimise pornography.
The proposal was defeated this morning by nine votes to five, with one abstention. It was the third time the Icann board had rejected to idea since it was suggested nearly seven years ago by ICM Registry.
“We are extremely disappointed by the board’s action today,” Stuart Lawley, ICM’s president and chief executive, said. He added that the organisation would continue to fight for the establishment of a .xxx domain.
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

Get Times news, business and sport on your mobile. Text Times to 86626



Overseas contacts and local business information

Our Credit Clinic has free help and advice
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Vukcevic,
You mean to say that scientists wouldn't be able to tell the difference between http://www.lanl.gov and http://hornycheeleaders.xxx?
Jack, NYC, USA
Hmm, not really sure why they are not going for this one - surely it is like the "top shelf" in a newsagents. To argue that the top shelf legitimises pornography and that it should be mixed in with the other mags seems ridiculous.
Alec, London,
Of course they are correct to reject it. For many years http://xxx. has been used by scientific organizations around the world to publish their material. Although one is prefix and the other suffix it could cause great deal of confusion.
e.g
http://xxx.lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA
http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/ Southampton University, UK
Vukcevic, London, Uk
It makes no sense to try and confine pornography online to a .xxx domain. None of the existing sites will be forced to move, they'll just redirect from the .xxx to their existing sites.
The problem is also one of definition - what is pornography? Who defines it? The USA, China, Iran, the Netherlands? One mans porn is another mans art...
David, northampton, UK
Couldn't agree more with J.F.F, Baltimore, MD. if you want it you know where to look, if you don't want it our your kids/workers to have access to it, then this will make it MUCH easier to block. ALL PORN SHOULD BE .xxx
Tim Blair, peterborough, UK
If it is true that ".xxx" would be more easily recognized on filters AND help prevent accidental viewing, it makes perfect sense. I find it difficult to understand why it has been rejected so many times. The question is; What is this plan going to complicate for all the groups that make money through Internet pornography? And, is the answer to that question the real reason why ".xxx" hasn't been excepted? I wouldn't be surprised if it all comes back to money. I personally do not agree with the Pornography industry, but I do believe in free speech and everyone has a right to express themselves as they wish. I also believe that if a grown adult wishes to view pornography then that should be their own choice. But a child who is curious or completely unsuspecting or anyone who accidentally clicks on the wrong link should NOT be bombarded with offensive material. I'm sure that it all comes down to money NOT logistics, and people will still do whatever they can to make a buck.
J.F.F, Baltimore, MD
I think 'ghetto' is an unfortunate choice of words. Unlike in the physical world, pornograghic content can be appropriately fenced off from the mentally fit internet clientele, without being inflicted on the neighborhoods of the underpriveledged. By all means let's shove internet porn into it's hole, or bowl, and flush while you we are at it.
Nicholas Smith, New York, USA
I think right thing to do is have .xxx as it is easier to identify, it is no way different from having .edu
pornos are opposing as they would lose accidental traffic. religious group are just that...groups oppose anything porn eventhough this is actually good for them.
sam, mumbai, india