Here is the text of the resolution: (the “wherases” were not transcribed but they’re in <4 min audio file at end of post)

“It is resolved that the board has considered the independent panel’s declaration in conforming with the ICANN  bylaw requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICMs application for .xxx. Resolved the board directs ICANN’s CEO and General Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration and further resolves that the board directs ICANN CEO and General Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM manner for public comment within 14 days which will enable the community to provide input on the board processes. The report will be posted for public comment for no less than 45 days which will enable the board to consider the possible process options no later than ICANN’s 38th International meeting in Brussels. ”

Here is the actual 3 min 45 sec.  audio of the resolution and vote:

ICANN Board XXX Vote Audio

This is hardly the first time ICANN has dealt with this issue. It rejected similar proposals in 2000, again in 2006 and most recently in 2007.

In an telephone interview Wednesday night from Nairobi (scroll down for podcast), ICM President Stuart Lawley said he successfully appealed the 2007 decision, paving the way for ICANN to reconsider the proposal on its merits.

The proposal has been a hot button for years, uniting some conservatives and some free-speech advocates in opposition to it. The conservative Family Research Council, for example, opposed the idea in a 2005 press release, arguing that “pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries, and society with pornography through the .xxx domain.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union also had concerns. In 2004, ACLU’s Barry Steinhardt told CNET’s Declan McCullagh that “there are nations all over the world that will undoubtedly try to force Web sites into the .xxx (top-level domain) or to block Web sites in it that they somehow view as offensive.” Steinhardt worried that “it will become a worldwide red-light district for the Internet, into which speakers who have free-expression rights and should be able to reach a mass audience will be forced.” (Steinhardt has since retired from the ACLU and is now at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.)

As an Internet safety advocate, my concern about .xxx is that it could give parents a false sense of security. True, it would be very easy to configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites designated as .xxx, but since this is a voluntary program, there would be nothing to stop adult site operators from also using .com. It would be like setting up a red-light district in a community while also allowing adult entertainment establishments to operate in residential shopping centers.

In our interview, Lawley responded to this concern: “It’s not a great secret and everyone is aware that there is a lot of adult content on the Internet and…it was never my job or the job of .xxx to try to eradicate that.” He expressed hope that “it would become the domain of choice for adult providers because of the benefits it would provide…The idea that this would be a universal panacea and cure-all for the issue adult content on the Web was never the intent.”

Lawley called .xxx “an attempt at credible self-regulation by engaging with other impacted stake holders.” He said that adult sites that use .xxx would be subject to “best business practices” that prohibition of child pornography and malicious software. It would also be “mandatory for .xxx sites to label their sites with machine readable tags. He called it a “win win win situation” for the adult entertainment providers, consumers of adult entertainment, and parents who wished to keep their kids away from adult content.

While I respect Lawley’s sincerely, I’m still not convinced the .xxx is in the best interest of child protection or free speech. As Lawley admits, this isn’t a panacea and, unfortunately, there are no other silver bullets when it comes to keeping kids from wandering into inappropriate online areas. Parents do have the option of installing content filters which are a lot better than they were when the idea for .xxx domains was first introduced, but even those are far from fool-proof. Until someone comes up with a better solution, my recommendation is that parents be with young children while they are online, check-in frequently with preteens and work with children of all ages–especially teenagers–to fine-tune that filter that runs between their ears.

Listen now: Download today’s podcast