The international Internet authority ICANN voted recently, for the third time, against creating a ".XXX" web domain for pornography. Those in favor of the change argued that it would be easier to identify and avoid porn sites. Not surprisingly, a host of Internet porn distributors lobbied against the measure for precisely that reason, in addition to their fear that it would be the first step toward requiring them to put their sites in the ".XXX" domain.

Perhaps surprisingly, however, at least for those unfamiliar with Bruce Yandle's Bootleggers and Baptists theory of strange bedfellows, several large Christian organizations also opposed the measure. An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that has been outspoken in opposition, claimed that the ".XXX" designation would increase the number of porn sites on the web. He also suggested that porn sellers actually favor creating the domain, though clearly they do not. Strange, yes?

A search for "Christian Internet filter," meanwhile, turns up several software packages available for purchase. And interestingly, several of the larger providers are owned by the very same organizations that oppose designating a separate ".XXX" domain for porn. A cynical person might conclude that the organizations most in danger of the obvious end game to a ".XXX" domain (the legal requirement that porn sites always be designated by that suffix) are the companies that now do a brisk business selling Internet filters to families concerned about their children happening across porn. If we one day corralled the smut to a clearly demarcated corner of the Web, these filters would lose their retail value.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of notable Christians opposing the ".XXX" designation honestly believe its prevention is a strike against Internet pornography, even though the strategic opportunity it would present to confine Internet porn to a ghetto has got to be apparent to people who concern themselves with these matters. Still, I'm sure the impetus, for most, is genuine. But isn't it interesting how the strategic position, in this case, just happens to line itself up with the financial interests of some of the most outspoken opponents to the designation?

Even more troubling is the seeming monolithic stance by Christian organizations on this issue. One could make a strong argument that, if the goal is to limit Internet porn, the ".XXX" domain is a positive step. It's not clear-cut, in other words. In such an instance, one might expect thinking people to disagree.

That's the most disappointing aspect of this kerfuffle. It puts me in mind of Mark Twain's admonition: "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."