F.   Lawmakers Seek Internet Domain Dedicated to Children’s Sites

     Congress is entertaining proposals to create a “children’s section” of the Internet.  The idea behind bills introduced in the House of Representatives is to create a new domain within the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) as a reservation devoted to child- and family-friendly Web sites.  The DNS is the system for assigning and operating Internet addresses, and it uses both generic top level domains (e.g., “.com,” “.net,” or “.org”) plus newer domains that include “.name” and “.biz.”  The bills represent the flip side of proposals that would create a “.xxx” domain for sexually oriented material.  That is, rather than creating a virtual “red light district” for adult Web sites, the “.kids” concept is to create a “green space” for Web sites in which all of the information is acceptable for children.

     The Dot Kids Domain Name Act of 2001, H.R. 2417, was introduced in June 2001 by Reps. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).  The bill would force the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the private corporation that administers the DNS, to create a new generic top level domain “for voluntary use as a location only for material that is considered suitable for minors.”  The new domain would not be permitted “for use as a location of any material that is harmful to minors.” 

     The registrar for the .kids domain would be required to develop written criteria to implement the content restrictions set forth in the bill in consultation with “family organizations and international organizations concerned with the operations of the Internet.”  Potential registrants would have the right to an impartial hearing “regarding any material excluded from the domain.”  Under the proposal, ICANN would be prohibited from establishing any other new domains until after the .kids domain has been established.  This .kids proposal was replaced by a bill with a less directly regulatory approach toward ICANN.  In March  2002, the sponsors of H.R. 2417, among others, introduced the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002, H.R. 3833.  Rather than compelling ICANN to create an additional domain, the new bill would require the creation of a .kids second level domain within the United States country code domain.  Unlike generic top level domains such as .com, country code domains (e.g., “.us”) are allocated to particular nations, and control over procedures and policies governing the allocation of second level domain names is delegated to local managers. 

     H.R. 3833 would require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the registry selected to operate the .us domain to “establish, operate, and maintain a second level domain within the United States country code domain that provides access only to material that is suitable for minors and not harmful to minors” (“.kids.us”).  The proposed congressional findings describe the .kids domain as “a ‘green-light’ area within the United States country code Internet domain” and compare it to “the creation of a children’s section within a library.”

     Compared to measures that have imposed direct regulation on Internet content, such as the Communications Decency Act, the creation of a .kids domain as a “green space” for child-friendly materials seems, at first glance, to be a relatively benign approach to creating an Internet environment that is hospitable to children.  But further scrutiny suggests that creating a .kids domain by legislative fiat would add very little to the child-oriented resources already available online and would create potential First Amendment problems that undermine the primary function of the domain name system.  The purpose of H.R. 3833 would be to create “a haven for material that promotes positive experiences for children and families using the Internet” and to provide “a safe online environment for kids.”  However, the Internet already offers myriad private alternatives directed toward the same objectives. 

     For example, the American Library Association Web site includes a section designated “Especially for Children and Their Parents” (www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/children.html), that provides information on and links to resources regarding online safety, education, and a host of other youth-oriented topics.  A particular section lists “cool sites for kids” (www.ala.org/alsc/children_links.html) that provides links to sites on reading and writing, homework help, science, nature and the environment, games, fun sites, etc. 

     Most local libraries that have an Internet presence provide similar online lists and resources.  In addition, many of the major search engines for Internet content provide versions that are specifically geared toward children (e.g., AOL Netfind for Kids, Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick!, LycosZone for Kids, and Yahooligans!).  Moreover, a number of online sites provide information and assistance for parents and children for ways to avoid exposure to unwanted Internet content.  The most prominent among these sites -- www.getnetwise.org -- serves as a clearinghouse for such information.

While a .kids domain would add little, if anything, to existing havens “that promote positive experiences for children and families using the Internet,” what harm could it do?  The answer is that a legislative approach would compromise the function of the domain name system by converting it from an international system for assigning and operating Internet addresses to a tool for regulating content according to the dictates of United States policy. 

     Such an effect would have been far more extreme under H.R. 2417, which sought to mandate actions by ICANN, a private international corporation.  However, H.R. 3833, which applies only to the .us domain, seeks nevertheless to use the DNS for purposes of American regulatory policy, rather than to support the function of Internet addressing.  Even a system designed to promote “positive” Web sites, and not to ban “undesirable” sites, may have an adverse effect on free expression.  For example, to maintain its contract with NTIA, the registry would be required to assign .kids.us Internet addresses only to Web sites that provide information “suitable for minors” under 13, which the bill defines as  “not psychologically or intellectually inappropriate for the age of the targeted audience.”  H.R. 3833 would require the operator of the .kids.us registry to develop written content standards for the new domain and to provide rules and procedures for enforcement and oversight, including a process for removing from the new domain any content that does not comply with the law’s content standards.  This system inevitably would lead to a large number of challenges over Internet content if current controversies in school and public libraries are any indication.  Such issues seldom have anything to do with access to “pornographic” material, but most often involve materials that are caught up in the “culture wars.” 

     For example, since 1999 the “Harry Potter” novels of J.K. Rowling have topped the list of most frequently challenged books in schools and libraries, primarily for their presentation, according to their detractors, of “wizardry and anti-family themes.”  While many educators and parents have praised the “Harry Potter” novels for encouraging children to read books, certain fundamentalist Christian groups across the country have staged book burnings because of the books’ sympathetic portrayal of witchcraft and wizardry. 

     The number of challenges to the “Harry Potter” novels tripled between 1999 and 2000, according to the American Library Association, and grew again in 2001.  The second most frequently challenged book in 2001 was John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men because of “offensive language” and for being “unsuited to age group.”  (See Chapter J, Section V.)  Based on this experience, it seems the .kids.us registry should be prepared to devote significant time and effort to its statutorily mandated role as arbiter of “appropriate” content for children.

     Adopting a federal policy to use the DNS to regulate Internet content unquestionably will raise new First Amendment issues.  Thus far, reviewing courts have denied constitutional claims involving the DNS because of the absence of state action, holding that the domain name system is administered by private entities, not the government.  See National A-1 Advertising Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156, 167-68 (D.N.H. 2000); Island Online, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 289, 304-07 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).