Baptists, bootleggers, and porn
CNET’s Dawn Kawamoto reports that the .xxx registry will not be happening anytime soon: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has rejected a controversial proposal to create a new .xxx domain suffix for adult Web sites. ICANN on Friday voted 9-5 to deny an application from ICM Registry, which for the past several ...
CNET's Dawn Kawamoto reports that the .xxx registry will not be happening anytime soon: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has rejected a controversial proposal to create a new .xxx domain suffix for adult Web sites. ICANN on Friday voted 9-5 to deny an application from ICM Registry, which for the past several years has sought to be the registry for adult-content Web sites. ICANN, which oversees domain names and Internet addresses, decided that ICM's proposal raised too many public-policy concerns and ultimately could change the role of the nonprofit organization. "ICM's response does not address (the ICANN Government Advisory Committee's) concern for offensive content and similarly avoids the GAC's concern for the protection of vulnerable members of the community," ICANN stated in the meeting. "The board does not believe these public-policy concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the applicant." In the New York Times, Thomas Crampton explains the interesting coalition of interest groups that opposed the .xxx registry: ICM had argued that creation of the domain would enhance safety for young users by clearly defining .xxx sites as a no-go zone. Described last week by Paul Twomey, Icann?s chief executive, as ?clearly controversial, clearly polarizing,? the issue had been discussed among Internet enthusiasts and on blogs. Some who objected to the proposal included companies in the sex-related entertainment industry as well as religious groups. The entertainment executives raised fears that use of the domain, although voluntary, could open the way for governments to isolate sex-oriented Web sites into a single part of the Internet. Religious groups expressed concern that creation of the .xxx domain would serve only to encourage creation of more sex-related content. Others warned that the move would create a bonanza for ICM Registry, since companies with existing Web sites would be compelled to buy .xxx domain names to prevent someone else from creating sites using their company names.Political scientists talk about "baptist-bootlegger coalitions" to explain occasions when groups on opposite sides of an issue support the same policy for very different reasons (baptists: naive expression of preferences; Bootleggers: rent-seeking). In this case, however, the baptists refused to side with the powerful bootlegger.
CNET’s Dawn Kawamoto reports that the .xxx registry will not be happening anytime soon:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has rejected a controversial proposal to create a new .xxx domain suffix for adult Web sites. ICANN on Friday voted 9-5 to deny an application from ICM Registry, which for the past several years has sought to be the registry for adult-content Web sites. ICANN, which oversees domain names and Internet addresses, decided that ICM’s proposal raised too many public-policy concerns and ultimately could change the role of the nonprofit organization. “ICM’s response does not address (the ICANN Government Advisory Committee’s) concern for offensive content and similarly avoids the GAC’s concern for the protection of vulnerable members of the community,” ICANN stated in the meeting. “The board does not believe these public-policy concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the applicant.”
In the New York Times, Thomas Crampton explains the interesting coalition of interest groups that opposed the .xxx registry:
ICM had argued that creation of the domain would enhance safety for young users by clearly defining .xxx sites as a no-go zone. Described last week by Paul Twomey, Icann?s chief executive, as ?clearly controversial, clearly polarizing,? the issue had been discussed among Internet enthusiasts and on blogs. Some who objected to the proposal included companies in the sex-related entertainment industry as well as religious groups. The entertainment executives raised fears that use of the domain, although voluntary, could open the way for governments to isolate sex-oriented Web sites into a single part of the Internet. Religious groups expressed concern that creation of the .xxx domain would serve only to encourage creation of more sex-related content. Others warned that the move would create a bonanza for ICM Registry, since companies with existing Web sites would be compelled to buy .xxx domain names to prevent someone else from creating sites using their company names.
Political scientists talk about “baptist-bootlegger coalitions” to explain occasions when groups on opposite sides of an issue support the same policy for very different reasons (baptists: naive expression of preferences; Bootleggers: rent-seeking). In this case, however, the baptists refused to side with the powerful bootlegger.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
