EU executive slams "interference" in sex site vote (Reuters)

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The Internet governing body's decisionto reject a new .xxx Internet domain for porn sites is a clearcase of U.S. political interference in the Web's governance,the said on Thursday.

The board of the U.S.-based Internet Corporation ofAssigned Names and Numbers () voted by 9 to 5 on Wednesdayto dismiss the application to register the domain name, whichwould be like the .com or .net at the end of an Internetaddress.

Supporters said a .xxx domain would have made it easier toconfine sex sites or filter them out, but critics such as theFamily Research Council, a conservative U.S.-based religiousgroup, complained it would only legitimize the porn industry.

The EU executive said the decision underscored the need tomake ICANN independent quickly, following unsuccessful demandslast year by a group of countries including the EU to makeICANN fully independent.

"We see here a first clear case of political interferencein ICANN," said Martin Selmayr, spokesman for EU InformationSociety and Media Commissioner, Viviane Reding.

He said correspondence between ICANN and the U.S.Department of Commerce, highlighted the "interference."

ICANN, a California-based non-profit group, cannot makechanges to the domain-name system without the approval of theU.S. .

"It's a worrying development that the U.S. administrationhas interfered in this process," Selmayr said.

He urged further steps to complete the privatization ofICANN in the course of this year to release it from theoversight of the Department of Commerce.

ICANN said in a statement on Wednesday that its discussionhad focused on issues such as sponsorship, compliance issuesand public policy concerns.

The .xxx application was seen as a test case of ICANN'sindependence.

At a summit in Tunis last November, the United Statesfought off attempts to wrest control of the domain-name systemfrom the Commerce Department.

The U.S. control of the domain-name system had become asticking point for countries like and Brazil, who arguedthat it should be managed by the or some otherglobal body.

The United States argued that such a body would stifleinnovation with red tape.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/