Conroy lobbies against .XXX domain

By Liz Tay on Oct 29, 2010 11:48 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP
 

Last minute move to block top level domain.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has moved to block the introduction of the .XXX top level domain, citing a "lack of identified public benefit".

In a letter to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) last week, Conroy urged the corporation to seek further governmental advice before creating the adult content domain.

The .XXX domain was registered by ICM Registry in 2004. ICANN approved ICM's application in June 2010 and was working towards finalising a contract.

ICM said the domain would allow for simple and effective filtering for internet users, and promote best business practices and more predictable revenue streams for adult content businesses.

It expected to launch .XXX domains "at the start of 2011, if not sooner".

Conroy urged ICANN to seek advice about the proposed contract from its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which comprised members from Australia and more than 100 other nations.

He highlighted concern over the public policy implications of .XXX, and "substantive" differences between the current contract and that initially considered by ICANN in March 2007.

"ICANN has an obligation to act in the interests of the wider internet community," he wrote.

"I would like to express my strong opposition to the introduction of a .XXX top level domain by ICANN, because of the lack of identified public benefit."

The Minister's office has yet to respond to iTnews' request for comment. An ICANN spokesman said it had received the letter, but a response had not yet been made.

Conroy's call for GAC consultation was echoed by adult entertainment trade association, the Free Speech Coalition, this week.

Coalition executive director Diane Duke noted in her letter that the last formal statement about .XXX from ICANN's GAC was on 28 March 2007, when it highlighted "a number of concerns about the application and the concept as a whole".

Australian adult industry organisation the Eros Association has also expressed its opposition to the .XXX domain, anticipating that if introduced, the domain would "receive a blanket ban under the Government's proposed mandatory internet filter".

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Conroy lobbies against .XXX domain
26 comments in this discussion
"Stephen, You would do far more good protecting Australias children by supporting Eugene Kasperskys digital passport scheme. Get the perps. It would also protect other Australians from other ..."
By Stuart21
 
Tags
conroy, tld, stld, icann, xxx, asp, icm, domain
Related Articles
Breaking Stories
 
Readers of this article also read...
 
Comments: 26
Ace
Oct 29, 2010 1:24 PM
 Doesn't the proposed Internet Filter also suffer from a "lack of identified public benefit"?
Sams
Oct 29, 2010 1:40 PM
 Wowser, wowser, wowser!

Mr Control, er Conroy, loves his crazy filter, yet he will undermine this opportunity to allow content producers to clearly label their wares as unsuitable for children, and undermine the ability of home users to protect children using their own filters that could be enhanced very nicely by using this domain suffix.
spj
Oct 29, 2010 1:49 PM
 Since when did "...lack of identified public benefit" become part of the consideration? As Ace points out, the filter suffers from the same issue.

Bollocks!
bclements
Oct 29, 2010 1:49 PM
 I guess this is one of the benefits of having a Communications Minister who is a half-wit. He doesn't even realise the opportunity this would provide for him to progress his censorship agenda even further.
BrettWinterford
Oct 29, 2010 1:54 PM
 To be fair to the Minister - who is far from being a half-wit - a signature of support for adult content on the internet would be quite a reversal of position!
Tom Brown
Oct 29, 2010 2:36 PM
 If all the RC material was required to be on XXX domains (maybe we could have a rubbish domain .CRP as well ) then there may be no need for the filter.

I agree with the filter proposal. I do not disagree with the .XXX domains as it puts a lot of material in one place easy to blacklist, I do not see the public interest as effected just the opposite as it will be easier to monitor and will place more of the criminal activity associated with this material in one place.

If RC material was only allowed on .XXX domains then an effective opt out could be in any OS or security product.

A suggestion for Microsoft, a .XXX restriction by default.
Tom Brown
Oct 29, 2010 2:45 PM
 2nd thought.
If the governments allowed .XXX domains through their filters and if Microsoft and other browser publishers by defalt blocked .XXX and then an opt out could be implemented and would give content providers an incentive to restrict their content to XXX so giving a global perspective and partial solution to the issue of RC or illegal material.
deonast
Oct 29, 2010 2:48 PM
 Well Bret I don't think supporting XXX would be a reversal of position, it is called pragmatism. You can't remove adult material but you can make it easier for people to choose to filter it if they want to.
To be fair however Conroy has never demonstrated pragmatism he gets an idea and sticks with it, good or bad in the public interest or not.
anonymous
Oct 29, 2010 3:05 PM
@Brett: "To be fair to the Minister - who is far from being a half-wit - a signature of support for adult content on the internet would be quite a reversal of position!"

I won't comment on the halfwit bit, except to note that a few million might disagree with you, but Conboy's stance on .XXX tld reveals his hypocrisy and untrustworthiness about his secret censorship scheme.

He's been flogging his stupid filter idea on the basis that it is only intended to block pedophile material, and here he is imposing a ban on a tld for fully legal adult content.

It's not hard to guess what he and his holy "stakeholders" would do if they got the chance to apply their own version of censorship.
realitybites
Oct 29, 2010 3:31 PM
 "He's been flogging his stupid filter idea on the basis that it is only intended to block pedophile material, and here he is imposing a ban on a tld for fully legal adult content.

It's not hard to guess what he and his holy "stakeholders" would do if they got the chance to apply their own version of censorship."

+1

Opposing a .xxx tld, where content can be managed far more efficiently for those that wish to do so, verifies (in my eyes anyway) the existence of a hidden agenda.
Cham
Oct 29, 2010 3:36 PM
 Makes perfect sense, if it was easier for everyone to filter their own internet, then they would do it (assuming they wanted to), and we wouldn't need a government controlled filter.
Perdix
Oct 29, 2010 3:55 PM
 either this guy is a big wowser,more right wing than Tony Abbott, or, as suspected all along, the internet filter is simply a front for more draconian filtering. He needs to stand up and tell us which it is.
If he was seriously concerned about inappropriate material landing on some kids monitor, then he would support the introduction of this tld, and would be lobbying to have all adult content use this,with severe penalties for those found to not be using it. He would also be looking at how he could support parents in their monitoring of their children's activities on line.
the alleged absence of public good is a pathetic attempt at control. There are lots of things for sale or otherwise available in society, and the measure as to whether it should be legally available has never been a 'public good 'test. The test in a democracy is whether there is public harm. And even here, he and his Govt fail miserably ( tobacco sales would be banned, we would not have heroin injecting centers,etc etc). So his base argument is devoid of objective logic. Following his logic, everything that does not have a demonstrable public good should immediately be banned, what a bland world we would then live in!.
This sort of ridiculous input from him simply diminishes him in everyone's eyes, and therefore any useful ideas he may have will be lost in the noise of his idiocy.

Hands up all those people who voted for him!
somerset26
Oct 29, 2010 5:37 PM
 Senator Conroy seems to have a pathological inability to accept that there are views other than his own. He appears ready to go to any extent to enforce his will. This is an extremely dangerous thing and is closer to the mores of Spain some centuries ago than our modern and hardwon pluralist society's values. Take this charm [NBN]from the bracelet of this very idiosyncratic man.
Tom Brown
Oct 30, 2010 11:48 AM
 Why is it so vexatious to the critics, is it that political or is it a romantic idea about freedom in this new frontier. If it is the latter then all frontiers end up explored, the internet is no longer a frontier, it is where ordinary people work, live and play.

And somerset26 you and so many critics have a pathological inability to understand that overwhelmingly the general community wants something done about the rubbish shoved in their face as they navigate the internet and the very real dangers involved in many of the activities surrounding RC material.

The critics are the most vocal, aggressive and minority contingent in this debate. I would bet that if Abbott came to power (which does not require an election) then before long the filter would be in place and there would not be the community consultation we see with Conroy. The senator appears to me to be looking for the best way to address the real issue not the rubbish made up be critics.

The critics also are the group so often misrepresenting the filter. If the critics are willing to misrepresent the argument it shows their shallow character and lack of good purpose. for example the arguments "only intended to block pedophile material" ( paedophile) then "the existence of a hidden agenda" then "Senator Conroy seems to have a pathological inability to accept that there are views other than his own" none of these are about facts all are about slandering Conroy because he is willing to take on this issue.
Johnny
Oct 30, 2010 2:35 PM
 Wouldnt a .xxx domain help conroys filtering plan?

......or does he just want to say "YEAH I STOPPED THE WORLD FROM HAVING A DOT XXX DOMAIN YAYYYY I HAVE SOME SORTA INFLUENCE OVER THE WORLD".
realitybites
Oct 30, 2010 3:05 PM
 @Johnny - From a technical point of view, yes it would. It would make filtering LEGAL ADULT content easier for everyone, including the end user.
realitybites
Oct 30, 2010 3:16 PM
 @Tom Brown
"If all the RC material was required to be on XXX domains (maybe we could have a rubbish domain .CRP as well ) then there may be no need for the filter.

I agree with the filter proposal. I do not disagree with the .XXX domains as it puts a lot of material in one place easy to blacklist, I do not see the public interest as effected just the opposite as it will be easier to monitor and will place more of the criminal activity associated with this material in one place.

If RC material was only allowed on .XXX domains then an effective opt out could be in any OS or security product.

A suggestion for Microsoft, a .XXX restriction by default."

That's right Tom, so how does opposing the .xxx tld make it EASIER to achieve this? That was the whole point of my post. We know about Conroy's agenda, he's come out publicly with it. Opposing the .xxx tld makes it harder for him (from a technical viewpoint) to implement his agenda(filter). Now why would he do that? You understand what I'm trying to say here?

I can only see two reasons:
1. The man is a complete buffoon (make your own conclusions about that), or
2. There are things in his proposal for a filter (agenda) that he is not telling us about. ie, hidden.

Can you see where I'm coming from Tom?
realitybites
Oct 30, 2010 3:46 PM
 Sorry cant help myself, this is just too juicy :)

Quoted from the article:
"I would like to express my strong opposition to the introduction of a .XXX top level domain by ICANN, because of the lack of identified public benefit."

So simplifying Internet filtering for everyone (including the implementation of his filter) has no public benefit?
Does this man have advisors? If so then they need to look for another job.
Tom Brown
Oct 30, 2010 7:09 PM
 Thank you realitybites for showing me the light.
Stuck in my dungeon I miss the salient points of Conroys push for a filter and the intellectual depths he employs to fool the mere mortals amongst us of which I am one.
Regards
Tom
Pilotyoda
Oct 31, 2010 11:19 AM
 1) Conman is a fool, although (in his eyes) well intentioned. Most of the intelligent information emanating from his department comes from a female. A politician without the numbers or front to have his job, but with more intelligence than he could ever dream of. He ignores anything she presents if he doesn't like it.

2) He does have a hidden agenda. He has already let slip that he would be quite happy to add anything to a black list that is deemed to be politically appropriate/desirable at any time in the future. For example, block political opposition, discussions of euthanasia or abortion issues, etc. (Note how both Libs and Labor would rather let each other win over the Greens in the upcoming State election, in a frenzy of maintaining the current political establishment status quo.

3) Having a .XXX tld would be simply fantastic if backed by laws that prohibit publishing any xxx sexual or violent or RC content on any other domain other than .XXX. Simple take down rules and criminal laws could apply and the EU, at least, would be happy to implement such legislation. Australia already has laws about what can be set up on the .AU tld so only an amendment is needed to implement this. Easy to manage & locally filter.

-Oops. Sorry. That would make Conman superfluous. Oh well, a small price to pay. To think he has just been voted back in for another 6 years. The IT industry has become too conservative for its own good......
tallguy
Nov 1, 2010 2:28 AM
 @Perdix: I think you are applying your "public harm" test too narrowly. Banning tobacco, heroin injecting rooms, (why not alcohol too?) is never a one dimensional action. Push in one place and something pops in another. Take a look at the outcome of prohibition in the US if you want some reference material.
mattaugamer
Nov 1, 2010 2:12 PM
 @tom brown I understand that some people are pro-filter because they don't want to see or their children to see such material. But personally I want to make that choice myself not have you (or Conroy) make it for me. You have the right to filter your own internet, and it's technically extremely easy to do so. Have you actually done so? Or would you prefer to force us ALL to view the world through YOUR concept of what's acceptable?
panto
Nov 1, 2010 3:11 PM
 Here's the one thing that might make his internet filter one step closer to being a technically feasible solution and he's opposed to it.

This guy needs to be charged with deprivation of liberty on a mass scale or something.. he doesn't seem to realize that he's making decisions based on minority views.
TheAdvisor
Nov 1, 2010 4:56 PM
 Typical christian wholesome values just don't mind our track record through history please.

What a clown this would be a great chance to block and track malicous porn websites the ones setup in allsorts of ridiculous places you know the ones yes the very same re directs i mentioned in another posts.

A lot of it going on.

At least those doing things legit distributing whatever well they have the chance to have a premium service.

Not have to compete QOS wise with inferior CC fraud and who knows what scammers for bandwidth globally.

Those not in the .xxx face global blocking (with apropriate checks in place) otherwise flip side you could see the implications.

Those found to be selling porn erk illegally and or malicously well revenue kaching!

Mind you with the govts track record on policing on public mediums eg CB ha yeh that'll work.

Maybe Conroy knows that even if they agreed on the .xxx domain that like those who said prior thats an icann issue.

It's not upto Conroy as that is a CCTLD no if buts or maybes
if anything it would possibly fall into melb IT's hands?

Because of Auda ?

Reason being like the .co .id erk and some others i can't think of they have to go sub level for the geolocation side of things.

Hence .co.uk .id.au bla bla bla

So if anything it would be xxx.au :)

Spanners anyone more spanners in the works cmon it's fun hearing question time be wasted on such non subjects.

It's more of a logistics issue i think more than moral values the costs alone because either an existing CCTLD NIC has to handle it or a new one/s have to be setup.

We're talking mega bucks look into the requirements to be
a CCTLD we're talking big time data centre requirements.

Not cheap and with that i presume requires at least a skeletal amount of staff even if outsourced bla bla bla.

Kaching $$$ and all the rest of it who's going to pay for all this?

Thats usually the first thing the govt ends up saying.

And we know the answer to that.

And would they pay for such a thing based on good wholesome family values?

ROFL middle stump see ya later !

Those more used to US phrasing strike 3 your outa there !
pameacs
Nov 1, 2010 5:02 PM
 Have to wonder how this is a good idea blocking this. I also have a concern with the whole RC thing. I mean unless a site has been put before the classification board or perhaps supplies some of the more extreme sexual perversions, does that mean it is RC. RC seems to paint to broad a brush for my thinking. I still have concern that something can go on the filter and the domain owner does not get informed. There is so much not clearly defined for what potentially becomes such bad censorship I have to oppose the broad filter proposal. I already use OpenDNS as a solution so my kids don't have access and if I want o get to something they filter I just do it after they are in bed. Its simple and doable by anyone who can use a website. Thats an awful lot these days based on Facebook usage. It's my filter and I manage what I want for me and my family. Moving any RC stuff to the XXX domain seems to me to once again be shooting ducks in a barrel. Since Mr Conroy doesn't have any corporate control of a company registered in Barbados or Virgin islands or even America, how exactly does a domain owner get moved to XXX?
Stuart21
Nov 3, 2010 1:28 PM
 Stephen,
You would do far more good protecting Australias children by supporting Eugene Kasperskys digital passport scheme. Get the perps. It would also protect other Australians from other internet malcontents.

If god did not want us to enjoy sex why did she create it? It is the church that does not want you to enjoy sex. Sex, being a universal drive, gives the church a tool - to give universal guilt. Funny how the church has so much trouble with sex itself - one church barely escaped being labeled a racketeer for protecting its pedomaniacs. But the fat boy may not have sung yet.

As to what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults, it is well established that that is none of your business. Or anybody elses.

Kasperskys' Digital Passport scheme. And I nominate Ric Richardson to represent Australias' interest in its development and implementation.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Review: Sydney's Opal smartcard
Review: Sydney's Opal smartcard
It's no Oyster card.
 
Rackspace puts price premium on Aussie public cloud
Rackspace puts price premium on Aussie public cloud
At least 17 percent more compared to US instances.
 
Photos: Google unveils internet balloons
Photos: Google unveils internet balloons
Web giant tests flying mesh network concept above New Zealand.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

iTnews Academy: Microsoft Windows Server 2012 - Hyper-V
iTnews Academy: Microsoft Windows Server 2012 - Hyper-V
Interview: Australia's 'cloud-last' policy is dangerous.
Interview: Australia's 'cloud-last' policy is dangerous.
Interview: Vivek Kundra on Australia's 'cloud last' policy
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest Comments
Powered by Disqus
Polls
Will you quit any cloud services in light of PRISM?
   |   View results
Yes
  74%
 
No
  26%
TOTAL VOTES: 38

Vote
view previous polls »