Quote:
Originally Posted by davecummings
Quentin, what do you think? I value your thoughts on this matter. Thanks!
|
This is precisely issue I addressed in
my comments submitted to ICANN yesterday; the definition of "sponsored community" in this draft of the ICM contract/proposal is structured to narrow the 'community' to only those companies/individuals who have already decided that they want .XXX to become a reality.
What I'm hoping is that by highlighting the preposterous circularity of the revised definition of the sponsored community, we can persuade ICANN to revisit the issue of sponsored community support, and how that support is to be measured and demonstrated, not just for this proposal, but for sTLD proposals made in the future.
Here is the relevant portion of the new definition of "Sponsored Community":
Quote:
|
?[.XXX] will serve individuals, business, entities, and organizations that: (i) have determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial, and (ii) have voluntarily agreed to comply with all International Foundation for Online Responsibility (?IFFOR?) Policies and Best Practices Guidelines, as published from time to time on the IFFOR web site.?
|
And here's a few snippets from my comments addressing the most obvious and severe of the problems with that definition:
Quote:
Setting aside for the moment that the ?Policies and Best Practices? referenced in the definition do not exist (opening the question of precisely how one goes about ?agreeing? to policies and best practices that have not been stated), this definition is a transparent end-run around the fact that ICM?s proposal has never enjoyed the level of support from members of the global adult entertainment industry that ICM?s representatives have previously asserted.
By redefining the sponsoring community such that it consists only of those individuals who already approve of the sTLD despite the complete lack of specifics concerning its eventual nature, ICM seeks to dismiss and render moot the opinions of those within the adult entertainment industry who oppose the measure. The fundamental flaw in the underpinning reasoning of this new definition of the Sponsored Community is that ALL adult industry stakeholders will be affected by the establishment of the .XXX sTLD, not just those who approve of the measure.
|
Quote:
What I cannot fathom.... is why ICANN should accept as valid a definition of the Sponsored Community offered by ICM that amounts to ?that portion of the affected business community which agrees with us, whatever the size of that portion.? Such a definition is so profoundly meaningless it would be quite humorous to me, were I not convinced that the sTLD it would facilitate has potentially disastrous implications for our industry.
I?m well aware of the fact that ICM considers the question of whether it has the support of adult industry stakeholders to be a closed issue, and I sympathize with ICANN?s desire to put a stop to the seemingly endless consideration and reconsideration of this proposed sTLD. If the operative definition of the Sponsored Community for .XXX is to be the one in the current draft of Appendix S of the Registry Agreement, however, ICANN ought to at least require ICM to define the ?Policies and Best Practices? that the Sponsored Community has (by ICM?s own definition) apparently already ?agreed? to.
|
These comments may well fall on deaf ears over at ICANN, but if they hear this repeated often enough, perhaps it will have some effect.
Personally, I find the whole idea of agreeing to something that hasn't been stated yet to be a nonsense construct at its core. How meaningful can my agreement or commitment be if I don't even know what I'm agreeing and committing to?
Hopefully, upon further review of the revised definition, ICANN will be persuaded that it is complete claptrap, too.