Stuart Lawley steps down from IFFOR - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 11-10-2011, 11:03 AM

I have to say, that was a pretty smart move if he wants people to believe that IFFOR is not just an ICM puppet.

http://iffor.org/news/chairman.html

cherrylula · 11-10-2011, 11:04 AM

i smell drama

baddog · 11-10-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

i smell drama

Well, you can probably expect the few "fuck .xxx" comments to be made, but those that laughed about IFFOR being the policy board with Lawley as the chairman have to at least give him credit for at least taking it into consideration and stepping down.

BlackCrayon · 11-10-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, you can probably expect the few "fuck .xxx" comments to be made, but those that laughed about IFFOR being the policy board with Lawley as the chairman have to at least give him credit for at least taking it into consideration and stepping down.

as long as he isn't replaced with a shill who lawley tells what to do.

LeRoy · 11-10-2011, 11:55 AM

Next step the bro club

baddog · 11-10-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

as long as he isn't replaced with a shill who lawley tells what to do.

Well, we know who is replacement is. Perhaps our GFY detectives can go to work on the drama of the day.

DamianJ · 11-10-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, we know who is replacement is. Perhaps our GFY detectives can go to work on the drama of the day.

It's Paul Markham isn't it? And he's gonna ban free porn and make ratios 1:1 and everything?

Magic join links FTW!

BlackCrayon · 11-10-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, we know who is replacement is. Perhaps our GFY detectives can go to work on the drama of the day.

He doesn't have any experience in adult internet but who knows, neither did Lawley.

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 04:33 PM

Not a lot of detective work required for this one, is there? Clyde has an ICANNwiki page listing his professional experience, and Stuart recognized the need for there to be a clear line between ICM and IFFOR.

baddog · 11-10-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

Not a lot of detective work required for this one, is there?

I don't know. I doubt anyone is going to take you at your word based on your screenname, date of registration and first post.

Quote:

Stuart recognized the need for there to be a clear line between ICM and IFFOR.

And I gave him props for that. Does not mean that we should just accept the new chair with no vetting.

FlexxAeon · 11-10-2011, 05:07 PM

uh.....until that vague veto power that ICM has is done away with, this is not impressive and just a PR titty flash

epitome · 11-10-2011, 05:12 PM

#OccupyICM ... I am within commuting distance of their office.

JFK · 11-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

i smell drama

only a faint hint right now ..............

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I don't know. I doubt anyone is going to take you at your word based on your screenname, date of registration and first post.

Only time can change that, I suppose.

Quote:

And I gave him props for that. Does not mean that we should just accept the new chair with no vetting.

Certainly not. I simply suggested a place to find a detailed overview of his qualifications.

Brujah · 11-10-2011, 06:43 PM

It's nice to finally see the other board members, ie. Abby Winters, WebPower, Strictly Broadband, a former ACLU president, etc...

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

uh.....until that vague veto power that ICM has is done away with, this is not impressive and just a PR titty flash

Thanks for bringing this up.

ICM doesn't have any power to veto policies voted on by IFFOR. In fact, if 75% of the IFFOR council vote in favor of a proposition, ICM MUST adopt. The only instance that ICM can refuse, is if the proposed policy is in direct breach of ICM's agreement with ICANN. That isn't really a veto, but a contractual obligation.

FlexxAeon · 11-10-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

Thanks for bringing this up.

ICM doesn't have any power to veto policies voted on by IFFOR. In fact, if 75% of the IFFOR council vote in favor of a proposition, ICM MUST adopt. The only instance that ICM can refuse, is if the proposed policy is in direct breach of ICM's agreement with ICANN. That isn't really a veto, but a contractual obligation.

that's not quite what lawley said in that one debate video. the bylaws sound more like what he was saying (I took a highlighter to it for you)

Quote:

Section 5.8.
c. Supplemental Recommendation. At the conclusion of the Council
discussions with the Board of Directors, the Council will meet to affirm or modify its
Recommendation or other action, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental
Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the Supplemental
Recommendation. The Board shall adopt any Supplemental Recommendation supported
by at least 75% of the Council including at least two members appointed by the Child
Advocacy, Free Expression, or Privacy and Security Stakeholder Group, and at least
three members appointed from the Sponsored Community by the Board of Directors or
the Sponsored Community Stakeholder Group, unless the Board determines that the
Supplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s
mission or would violate this corporation?s contract with ICM Registry. If the Board of
Directors rejects the Supplemental Recommendation, it must publish on this
corporation?s website its reasons for rejecting the Council Recommendation. The
decision of the Board of Directors will be final.

http://iffor.org/docs/iffor-bylaws-26jul10-en.pdf

i'm just a dumb webmaster though. what does "unless the board determines" mean?

Barry-xlovecam · 11-10-2011, 08:12 PM

This is the important part; "[S]upplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s mission ... " In legal terms it is known as a "weasel clause" a contract writer's way of providing himself "wiggle room" and a contractual escape clause.

It street terms: a fuck you clause -- I don't like it and I ain't doing it.

baddog · 11-10-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

Only time can change that, I suppose.

An introduction might, as well. Who are you?

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

that's not quite what lawley said in that one debate video. the bylaws sound more like what he was saying (I took a highlighter to it for you)

i'm just a dumb webmaster though. what does "unless the board determines" mean?

Legalese is enough to give anyone but lawyers a headache. And please - You're not a dumb webmaster. It's a legitimate question.

Let me try again. If IFFOR's council votes for something, IFFOR's BOARD must accept it UNLESS it breaches the ICM/IFFOR contract or breaches the IFFOR charter. THEN ICM MUST accept it UNLESS acceptance would force ICM to breach its contract with ICANN, (or it isn't reasonable commercially, or causes instability to the DNS)

So to give an example, if the policy council voted by 75% to give a turkey to every single webmaster for Christmas, it would move forward. At that point the IFFOR board would say - "Hey, that isn't consistant with the charter!" If the board lost its collective minds and pushed it through anyway, then ICM could then say, "Um, sorry no - because that cannot possibly be implemented in a commercially reasonable manner."

Also, per IFFOR policy, the entirety of this process would be published on IFFOR's website, and so publicly available and entirely transparent.

Did that help?

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

An introduction might, as well. Who are you?

I'm really a machine to test the new .xxx superhyperawesome technology! Siri's got nothing on me! I'm the absence of drama and the answerer of questions. I'm the xxxprbot!

It's a pleasure to meet you Baddog.

Evil Chris · 11-10-2011, 09:29 PM

I'm unsure if I need to give a damn about this or not. Do I?

baddog · 11-10-2011, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

I'm really a machine to test the new .xxx superhyperawesome technology! Siri's got nothing on me! I'm the absence of drama and the answerer of questions. I'm the xxxprbot!

It's a pleasure to meet you Baddog.

It was announced that ICM Registry would be providing McAfee Secure to all domain buyers. My question is, will this be a requirement? I have to ask because as a web host I have many different levels of users, from sole proprietors to larger companies. Some of our clients do use McAfee Secure and have found it will suggest a domain is unsecure if PHP or other server software is not up to date with the latest releases. I know many business owners do not jump right into new updates because they must see how it affects their custom scripts or what changes they must make to their scripts before the update can be successful. What will happen to their .xxx domains? Will there be a time table from McAfee or ICM Registry that will require compliance of being secure for the .XXX owners?

FlexxAeon · 11-10-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

Legalese is enough to give anyone but lawyers a headache. And please - You're not a dumb webmaster. It's a legitimate question.

Let me try again. If IFFOR's council votes for something, IFFOR's BOARD must accept it UNLESS it breaches the ICM/IFFOR contract or breaches the IFFOR charter. THEN ICM MUST accept it UNLESS acceptance would force ICM to breach its contract with ICANN, (or it isn't reasonable commercially, or causes instability to the DNS)

So to give an example, if the policy council voted by 75% to give a turkey to every single webmaster for Christmas, it would move forward. At that point the IFFOR board would say - "Hey, that isn't consistant with the charter!" If the board lost its collective minds and pushed it through anyway, then ICM could then say, "Um, sorry no - because that cannot possibly be implemented in a commercially reasonable manner."

Also, per IFFOR policy, the entirety of this process would be published on IFFOR's website, and so publicly available and entirely transparent.

Did that help?

No. It's the same thing

"commercially reasonable" is exactly the issue. But no need to explain further.

Look.... Nothing personal. I'm not one of these guys with a vendetta. And I can understand why such a clause would be necessary for a business to have. I'm just really tired of ICM peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining. Leads me to believe that you guys think just because we do adult, we're idiots. And I resemble that remark.

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

It was announced that ICM Registry would be providing McAfee Secure to all domain buyers. My question is, will this be a requirement? I have to ask because as a web host I have many different levels of users, from sole proprietors to larger companies. Some of our clients do use McAfee Secure and have found it will suggest a domain is unsecure if PHP or other server software is not up to date with the latest releases. I know many business owners do not jump right into new updates because they must see how it affects their custom scripts or what changes they must make to their scripts before the update can be successful. What will happen to their .xxx domains? Will there be a time table from McAfee or ICM Registry that will require compliance of being secure for the .XXX owners?

I can't respond to that right at this very moment, because I don't have a technical answer for you. I will certainly find out and gat back to you though. Will that be acceptable?

DotXXX · 11-10-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

No. It's the same thing

"commercially reasonable" is exactly the issue. But no need to explain further.

Look.... Nothing personal. I'm not one of these guys with a vendetta. And I can understand why such a clause would be necessary for a business to have. I'm just really tired of ICM peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining. Leads me to believe that you guys think just because we do adult, we're idiots. And I resemble that remark.

I do want it to be clear though, so I'm happy to attempt another explanation.

I appreciate that you don't have a vendetta, as I'd like to be a point of communication as opposed to competing to rank in battle of the board warriors.

The clause that you pointed to is specifically about IFFOR. It's IFFOR's council, and the ability for IFFOR's board to make a determination. I added the only time that ICM can exercise what could be interpreted as a veto. You're bothered by the phrase "commercially reasonable." But ICM is a business, that is providing a service. It would make no sense at all NOT to include it, for itself as a for profit business, and as a business providing a service to its customers. It's unreasonable to expect any business to approve a commercial venture that could/ or does eventually prohibit its ability to continue to provide service. One might consider how many programs have folded in this industry because they made a choice to stop paying affiliates when their traffic slowed down. That would probably qualify as "not commercially reasonable" or otherwise known as shooting yourself in the foot.

And given that .xxx *is* and adult venture, it would be silly for us to believe that 'because people do adult, they're idiots.' Yes, you do adult. No - I don't think you're an idiot, and I do thank you for both your candid question and your lack of vendetta.

FlexxAeon · 11-10-2011, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

I do want it to be clear though, so I'm happy to attempt another explanation.

I appreciate that you don't have a vendetta, as I'd like to be a point of communication as opposed to competing to rank in battle of the board warriors.

The clause that you pointed to is specifically about IFFOR. It's IFFOR's council, and the ability for IFFOR's board to make a determination. I added the only time that ICM can exercise what could be interpreted as a veto. You're bothered by the phrase "commercially reasonable." But ICM is a business, that is providing a service. It would make no sense at all NOT to include it, for itself as a for profit business, and as a business providing a service to its customers. It's unreasonable to expect any business to approve a commercial venture that could/ or does eventually prohibit its ability to continue to provide service. One might consider how many programs have folded in this industry because they made a choice to stop paying affiliates when their traffic slowed down. That would probably qualify as "not commercially reasonable" or otherwise known as shooting yourself in the foot.

And given that .xxx *is* and adult venture, it would be silly for us to believe that 'because people do adult, they're idiots.' Yes, you do adult. No - I don't think you're an idiot, and I do thank you for both your candid question and your lack of vendetta.

the issue i have is the (personally perceived of course) farce that is the IFFOR and/or what it represents.

i can understand that ICM is a business and it's goal is to profit. I can also understand that IFFOR is (supposed to be) a non-profit for policy formulation. what i CAN'T understand is these two entities co-existing without one being able to supersede the other at some point, as they are each supposedly trying to accomplish two different things that will be at odds at some point. ICM wants to profit as much money as possible. IFFOR is supposed to be protecting the children.

the only way that this set up makes sense is with the whole "government regulation" angle tha'ts been flying around, but i won't go into that as it's moot for now

while i don't think that ICM would ever venture into anything that is clearly harming the children, what happens when (i really should say IF) IFFOR were to present a policy that hits ICM too hard in the pockets? something really "grey area" and vague. just as a hypothetical, lets say that "sites on .xxx domains cannot have girls in pigtails because of the implied CP". ICM does an assessment and determines that's going to affect too much of their income (or.... "not commercially reasonable") and they decline the suggestion. so.....what is IFFOR for? how about just do away with IFFOR, and ICM sells their domains. i can respect that. but trying to convince us that we need guidelines or policing that we already had is the pee/leg/rain i spoke of.

it doesn't take another separate entity to determine policy. we've been doing it for YEARS before you guys showed up. and if we did want/need an additional non-profit entity they surely should not be at the feet of a for-profit business. that just doesn't even fly right

your closing words were kind but i still doubt the sincerity - sorry

again, nothing personal not saying you (don't even know who you are lol), but the entity. they way they came in the door, these "press releases" and "debates" and other propaganda show me what ICM thinks of us on the intelligence scale

epitome · 11-10-2011, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

the issue i have is the (personally perceived of course) farce that is the IFFOR and/or what it represents.

i can understand that ICM is a business and it's goal is to profit. I can also understand that IFFOR is (supposed to be) a non-profit for policy formulation. what i CAN'T understand is these two entities co-existing without one being able to supersede the other at some point, as they are each supposedly trying to accomplish two different things that will be at odds at some point. ICM wants to profit as much money as possible. IFFOR is supposed to be protecting the children.

the only way that this set up makes sense is with the whole "government regulation" angle tha'ts been flying around, but i won't go into that as it's moot for now

while i don't think that ICM would ever venture into anything that is clearly harming the children, what happens when (i really should say IF) IFFOR were to present a policy that hits ICM too hard in the pockets? something really "grey area" and vague. just as a hypothetical, lets say that "sites on .xxx domains cannot have girls in pigtails because of the implied CP". ICM does an assessment and determines that's going to affect too much of their income (or.... "not commercially reasonable") and they decline the suggestion. so.....what is IFFOR for? how about just do away with IFFOR, and ICM sells their domains. i can respect that. but trying to convince us that we need guidelines or policing that we already had is the pee/leg/rain i spoke of.

it doesn't take another separate entity to determine policy. we've been doing it for YEARS before you guys showed up. and if we did want/need an additional non-profit entity they surely should not be at the feet of a for-profit business. that just doesn't even fly right

your closing words were kind but i still doubt the sincerity - sorry

again, nothing personal not saying you (don't even know who you are lol), but the entity. they way they came in the door, these "press releases" and "debates" and other propaganda show me what ICM thinks of us on the intelligence scale

You go girl!

DWB · 11-11-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, you can probably expect the few "fuck .xxx" comments to be made, but those that laughed about IFFOR being the policy board with Lawley as the chairman have to at least give him credit for at least taking it into consideration and stepping down.

Giving Lawley credit for anything other than orchestrating this sham is like giving Manwin credit for their ethical business practices and anti-piracy policy.

MrCain · 11-11-2011, 09:26 AM

I still do not trust the ICMRegistry (or IFFOR).

baddog · 11-11-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

I can't respond to that right at this very moment, because I don't have a technical answer for you. I will certainly find out and gat back to you though. Will that be acceptable?

Anytime soon?

DotXXX · 11-11-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

It was announced that ICM Registry would be providing McAfee Secure to all domain buyers. My question is, will this be a requirement? I have to ask because as a web host I have many different levels of users, from sole proprietors to larger companies. Some of our clients do use McAfee Secure and have found it will suggest a domain is unsecure if PHP or other server software is not up to date with the latest releases. I know many business owners do not jump right into new updates because they must see how it affects their custom scripts or what changes they must make to their scripts before the update can be successful. What will happen to their .xxx domains? Will there be a time table from McAfee or ICM Registry that will require compliance of being secure for the .XXX owners?

No, it will not be a requirement. McAfee already scans much of the web as part of their McAfee Site Advisor service, and you can see those results via look-up on their site or via a browser plug-in. You can see the results for gotwebhost here. Siteadvisor dot com/sites/www dot gotwebhost dot com (please forgive the spaces and spelled out punctuation, I?m unable post real links yet).

What ICM is offering to .XXX domain owners, and what they are paying McAfee for, is a daily scan of all .XXX sites. Additionally, each and every webmaster has the option (not obligation) to go to a self service portal run by ICM/McAfee and subscribe (free of charge) to the service, allowing them to download and activate the familiar McAfee Malware Secure logo with the familiar date stamp, enabling them to display this on their sites.

Once a site is scanned, if any Malware is found, two things happen. First, the webmaster is notified of the problem via email; and second, the logo and date stamp simply disappear until the problem is rectified and a new scan reflects the absence of Malware.

This service normally would cost several hundred dollars per year if purchased directly from McAfee and is provided free of charge by ICM as part of its deal with McAfee.

It is ICM's view that trust on the web is going to be an important part of the evolution of the internet and along with the statement that every site is labeled with the latest W3C child protection labels, it is a significant and useful message to be able to say that every .XXX site is at least scanned for Malware every day.

The benefit to .XXX webmasters is also clear. Positioning Adult sites at the forefront of responsibility on the net, can only enhance their reputation and lead to more visitors.
Moreover, sites using the McAfee Secure logo service have been shown to increase revenues by approximately 12%.

But again, there is no obligation on the part of .XXX webmasters to register with McAfee, or to use the Secure logo. It is simply a value added service that ICM negotiated and offers free of charge to .XXX webmasters as tool for increased success.

DotXXX · 11-11-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Anytime soon?

Nice timing?

DotXXX · 11-11-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

the issue i have is the (personally perceived of course) farce that is the IFFOR and/or what it represents.

i can understand that ICM is a business and it's goal is to profit. I can also understand that IFFOR is (supposed to be) a non-profit for policy formulation. what i CAN'T understand is these two entities co-existing without one being able to supersede the other at some point, as they are each supposedly trying to accomplish two different things that will be at odds at some point. ICM wants to profit as much money as possible. IFFOR is supposed to be protecting the children.

the only way that this set up makes sense is with the whole "government regulation" angle tha'ts been flying around, but i won't go into that as it's moot for now

while i don't think that ICM would ever venture into anything that is clearly harming the children, what happens when (i really should say IF) IFFOR were to present a policy that hits ICM too hard in the pockets? something really "grey area" and vague. just as a hypothetical, lets say that "sites on .xxx domains cannot have girls in pigtails because of the implied CP". ICM does an assessment and determines that's going to affect too much of their income (or.... "not commercially reasonable") and they decline the suggestion. so.....what is IFFOR for? how about just do away with IFFOR, and ICM sells their domains. i can respect that. but trying to convince us that we need guidelines or policing that we already had is the pee/leg/rain i spoke of.

it doesn't take another separate entity to determine policy. we've been doing it for YEARS before you guys showed up. and if we did want/need an additional non-profit entity they surely should not be at the feet of a for-profit business. that just doesn't even fly right

your closing words were kind but i still doubt the sincerity - sorry

again, nothing personal not saying you (don't even know who you are lol), but the entity. they way they came in the door, these "press releases" and "debates" and other propaganda show me what ICM thinks of us on the intelligence scale

I think it?s possible that you partly misunderstand the purpose of IFFOR.

.XXX is a sponsored top level domain (sTLD), as opposed to a generic top level domain (gTLD).

From IFFOR?s website: (and in a quote for the tl;dr crowd)

Quote:

?Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD (or gTLD) operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning the TLD.

A Sponsor is an organization to which is delegated some defined ongoing policy-formulation authority regarding the manner in which a particular sponsored TLD is operated. The sponsored TLD has a Charter, which defines the purpose for which the sponsored TLD has been created and will be operated. The Sponsor is responsible for developing policies on the delegated topics so that the TLD is operated for the benefit of a defined group of stakeholders, known as the Sponsored TLD Community, that are most directly interested in the operation of the TLD. The Sponsor also is responsible for selecting the registry operator and to varying degrees for establishing the roles played by registrars and their relationship with the registry operator. The Sponsor must exercise its delegated authority according to fairness standards and in a manner that is representative of the Sponsored TLD Community.

The extent to which policy-formulation responsibilities are appropriately delegated to a Sponsor depends upon the characteristics of the organization that may make such delegation appropriate. These characteristics may include the mechanisms the organization uses to formulate policies, its mission, its guarantees of independence from the registry operator and registrars, who will be permitted to participate in the Sponsor's policy-development efforts and in what way, and the Sponsor's degree and type of accountability to the Sponsored TLD Community.?

In other words, IFFOR is first, required to exist as an independent entity, per ICANN, as the sponsor for ICMRegistry, and second, is the representative voice for the sponsored community. So while ?protecting children? is indeed one of the policy goals stated in IFFOR?s charter, it isn?t the ONLY goal, nor is it the entirety of its purpose. (You can find IFFOR?s policy goals on the main page of their website and the current policies under the policies link, under baseline policies.)

I hope that clarifies things somewhat, but if not, I?ll keep trying!

I can assure you that I am entirely sincere, and I appreciate your not making that a ?personal? statement. I also realize that there is a combination of a lot of negativity, and a distinct lack of information, which is part of why I?m here. We recognize the need for straight answers to legitimate questions, away from distinctly impersonal press releases and without the spin and drama that surrounds panels and debates. Because honestly ? who doesn?t want to bring the popcorn and anticipate a brawl when attending a panel entitled .XXX Smackdown?

BareBacked · 11-11-2011, 03:51 PM

What is IFFOR and what is ICM?

FlexxAeon · 11-11-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

I think it?s possible that you partly misunderstand the purpose of IFFOR.

.XXX is a sponsored top level domain (sTLD), as opposed to a generic top level domain (gTLD).

From IFFOR?s website: (and in a quote for the tl;dr crowd)

In other words, IFFOR is first, required to exist as an independent entity, per ICANN, as the sponsor for ICMRegistry, and second, is the representative voice for the sponsored community. So while ?protecting children? is indeed one of the policy goals stated in IFFOR?s charter, it isn?t the ONLY goal, nor is it the entirety of its purpose. (You can find IFFOR?s policy goals on the main page of their website and the current policies under the policies link, under baseline policies.)

I hope that clarifies things somewhat, but if not, I?ll keep trying!

I can assure you that I am entirely sincere, and I appreciate your not making that a ?personal? statement. I also realize that there is a combination of a lot of negativity, and a distinct lack of information, which is part of why I?m here. We recognize the need for straight answers to legitimate questions, away from distinctly impersonal press releases and without the spin and drama that surrounds panels and debates. Because honestly ? who doesn?t want to bring the popcorn and anticipate a brawl when attending a panel entitled .XXX Smackdown?

saying "protecting the children" is just my shorthand, as most people here including myself are aware of what IFFOR's intended purpose is.

again, and unfortunately, your reply doesn't clarify much, just seem to be dodging and moving tangentially away from explaining how this:

Quote:

unless the Board determines that the Supplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s mission

doesn't mean that ICM has the final say so or "veto" on a recommendation. so i stand by my original post. iit still seems that IFFOR isn't as "separate" of an entity as it intends to be, and i still interpret the bylaws to mean that ICM has the power to ignore anything that they see fit. and since lawley is still at the helm of ICM, him stepping down from IFFOR means little.

BUT.... I admit that the cozy relationship of these two entities makes little difference in the long run. I don't have any .xxx domains and have no intentions on buying. Even if I did it still would be of little consequence. I just see the HUGE conflict of interest this would cause if we were to all be forced onto .xxx domains. If that day comes I'll be beating the drum again.

Pete Goodman · 11-11-2011, 04:00 PM

internet history in the making. bookmark this thread.

Rochard · 11-11-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

It's Paul Markham isn't it? And he's gonna ban free porn and make ratios 1:1 and everything?

Magic join links FTW!

Okay that was great!

alias · 11-11-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

I'm really a machine to test the new .xxx superhyperawesome technology! Siri's got nothing on me! I'm the absence of drama and the answerer of questions. I'm the xxxprbot!

You know the drill, go fuck yourself.

DotXXX · 11-11-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

saying "protecting the children" is just my shorthand, as most people here including myself are aware of what IFFOR's intended purpose is.

again, and unfortunately, your reply doesn't clarify much, just seem to be dodging and moving tangentially away from explaining how this:

Quote:

unless the Board determines that the Supplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s mission

doesn't mean that ICM has the final say so or "veto" on a recommendation. so i stand by my original post. iit still seems that IFFOR isn't as "separate" of an entity as it intends to be, and i still interpret the bylaws to mean that ICM has the power to ignore anything that they see fit. and since lawley is still at the helm of ICM, him stepping down from IFFOR means little.

BUT.... I admit that the cozy relationship of these two entities makes little difference in the long run. I don't have any .xxx domains and have no intentions on buying. Even if I did it still would be of little consequence. I just see the HUGE conflict of interest this would cause if we were to all be forced onto .xxx domains. If that day comes I'll be beating the drum again.

Actually, in the paragraph that you are quoting, "the board" is actually the IFFOR board. IFFOR has a board and a policy council. So Stuart stepping down from the IFFOR board, really does draw a clear line of separation between ICM and IFFOR.

And as I stated in another thread, ICM has no intention of lobbying to make .XXX mandatory.

Thank you though, for the opportunity to have a conversation that didn't require popcorn.

DotXXX · 11-11-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

You know the drill, go fuck yourself.

Thanks for the warm welcome, Alias. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment. Duty calls and all that.

baddog · 11-11-2011, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotXXX

Nice timing?

Well, an hour and a half . . . but okay. At least I got a straight answer this time. Thanks.

11-10-2011, 11:03 AM	#1
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Stuart Lawley steps down from IFFOR I have to say, that was a pretty smart move if he wants people to believe that IFFOR is not just an ICM puppet. http://iffor.org/news/chairman.html

11-10-2011, 11:55 AM	#5
LeRoy Porn Pusher Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: It's a dry heat Posts: 13,341	Next step the bro club __________________ JAPANESE CAMS AND CONTENT SITES Teams - leroy.rowland2 Telegram - @lroddd

11-10-2011, 05:07 PM	#11
FlexxAeon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,765	uh.....until that vague veto power that ICM has is done away with, this is not impressive and just a PR titty flash __________________ flexx [dot] aeon [at] gmail

11-10-2011, 06:43 PM	#15
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	It's nice to finally see the other board members, ie. Abby Winters, WebPower, Strictly Broadband, a former ACLU president, etc... __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

11-10-2011, 08:12 PM	#18
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	This is the important part; "[S]upplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s mission ... " In legal terms it is known as a "weasel clause" a contract writer's way of providing himself "wiggle room" and a contractual escape clause. It street terms: a fuck you clause -- I don't like it and I ain't doing it.

11-10-2011, 11:04 AM	#2
cherrylula lol Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 15,969	i smell drama

11-10-2011, 04:33 PM	#9
DotXXX Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 226	Not a lot of detective work required for this one, is there? Clyde has an ICANNwiki page listing his professional experience, and Stuart recognized the need for there to be a clear line between ICM and IFFOR.

11-10-2011, 05:12 PM	#12
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	#OccupyICM ... I am within commuting distance of their office.

11-10-2011, 09:29 PM	#22
Evil Chris OG Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: 3rd from the Sun Posts: 13,233	I'm unsure if I need to give a damn about this or not. Do I? __________________ It PAYZE to post on GFY chris at payze.com \| Skype chriswrp

11-11-2011, 09:26 AM	#30
MrCain Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,332	I still do not trust the ICMRegistry (or IFFOR). __________________ Sigmund

11-11-2011, 03:51 PM	#35
BareBacked Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: www.BareBacked.com Posts: 3,685	What is IFFOR and what is ICM? __________________ NEW SITE PAYING $30 for a $1 TRIAL Selfies

11-11-2011, 04:00 PM	#37
Pete Goodman So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA, Minnesota Posts: 99	internet history in the making. bookmark this thread.