VERY IMPORTANT INFO - update RE proposed .XXX domain - GoFuckYourself.com

polish_aristocrat · 02-15-2007, 05:16 PM

The ICANN Board of directors had a recent meeting on Monday, 12th February 2007.
I will quote the complete and detailed summary of everything which has been discussed on the meeting in regard to the proposed .xxx domain.
Everyone really interested in this subject should take his time to read it to get an idea how things look right now....

For those who are too lazy - a short summary:

Basically ICANN spent LOTS OF TIME to discuss whether or not .xxx has sponsored community (adult webmasters support).

So unlike some prominent members of this board said, this proves again that ICANN values our opinions a lot since they really spent lots of time dicsussing issues related to the support for .XXX (or lack of it) among adult webmasters.

They have made clear that in recent public comments period substantial input regarding .xxx has been received and that it seems like .xxx has major opposition among the sponsored community.
Many ICANN board members expressed the view that it seems to them like the opposition towards .xxx has increased recently.

They also spoke about the Xbiz conference but unfortunately they had not enough material on what happened at the seminar.

Then the board also VOTED on whether it seems to them if .xxx has sufficient community support or not, and the result of the vote was that the majority of ICANN board members have the feeling that .xxx has not enough community support. They will request more input from ICM regarding this, since they stated that ICM has presented opinions of 24 MAJOR online adult content suppliers who support .xxx ( no company names are mentioned obviously ).

Another minor thing that they discussed was - whether a recent change in the proposed contract (the revised version of Appendix S) should be subject to another period of public comments. It looks like indeed it will be the case so we can expect a new 3 weeks public comments period soon again

Basically the message is quite good to us in the way that it shows that unlike some people think, ICANN clearly is concerned whether or not .xxx has sufficient adult webmasters community support. That proves that those GFY'ers who said "you are stupid if you think your letter to ICANN will make a difference" were wrong

It will be interesting to see how this evolves....

polish_aristocrat · 02-15-2007, 05:17 PM

part 1.....

Quote:

Consideration of Proposed .XXX Registry Agreement and recent public comment period

John Jeffrey introduced this item. John asked the board to consider a decision-making process on the pending issues along the following three issue areas: 1) community review and public comment of the agreement and the sufficiency of the proposed agreement; 2) the status of advice from the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and a clarification of the letter from the GAC Chair and Chair-Elect, and whether additional public policy advice had been received or was expected following the Wellington CommuniquĂ? ; and 3) how ICM measures up against the RFP criteria.

John noted in relation to community input that since the initial application on the proposed application and revised contract, there had been over 200,000 emails sent to ICANN and additionally over 1300 separate comments had been received in the public comment forums established by ICANN.

John noted a summary of the most recent public comments on the revised agreement posted from 5 January 2007 to 5 February 2007 was provided to the board and was to be posted, publicly. John reported that Staff received over 600 public comments and approximately 55,579 emails (from an email campaign on a website) during and since this period. Of the comments posted to the public forum, 488 (77%) were opposed and 107 (16%) expressed support, with the others not indicating a view. Of the emails, nearly all were written on the same form opposing the introduction of the sTLD.

John also noted that it was important that the Board in making any decision on this matter should take into account the extensive public comments on this issue and the Board's review of this information should be noted.

Vint Cerf asked whether in the breakdown of comments, it was possible to determine what fraction of the adult online content community supported the creation of the domain. John noted that the support of the adult online content community was an issue area that had been raised in various comments, but indicated that it would be difficult to measure the participation of the larger community in this manner, since only those that wished to participate in the forum would do so. Rita Rodin indicated that a note in the Board materials prepared by staff indicated that during the 5 January through 5 February 2007 public comment period, 88 commentators identified themselves as web masters of adult content of whom 65 were opposed to the development of the .XXX domain and 23 were in favor. Kurt Pritz said that in relation to the issue of establishing whether there was support for domain creation amongst a sponsorship community that ICM had provided extensive evidence for a sponsorsed community and that documentation of this could be found in the application. Kurt also pointed out that, at the Board's request, additional information had been presented to them during ICANN's Mar del Plata Meeting.

Vint Cerf noted that he had been notified by email that there was a meeting of the adult online community that had recently taken place to discuss the creation of the new .XXX domain, and that the meeting was attended by ICM. John Jeffrey noted that he was informed that the meeting had taken place approximately one week earlier, and that Stuart Lawley of ICM had participated in a panel discussion. John also indicated that he was informed that it was sparsely attended and that there was no transcript of the panel discussion at this point. Vint Cerf asked whether by inference that meant there was no groundswell of support for the creation of the domain at that meeting. John Jeffrey reflected that he did not believe that there was enough information about the conference to support that conclusion. Vint Cerf advised that a transcript of the meeting had been offered to him, but it was not yet available.

Vint Cerf asked for an update on the status of the agreement that was posted. John Jeffrey said that subsequent to the posting of the agreement on 5 January Susan Crawford amongst other Board Members had asked for clarification of language in the posted version of Appendix S. Upon review of the agreement with ICM's attorneys both sides negotiated additional clarifying language into a new version of that Appendix.

These discussions and relevant changes to the Appendix were finalized last week on 8 February. Vint Cerf asked whether these modifications needed to be subject to a public comment period. John Jeffrey advised that ICM believed the changes were non-substantive and that ICM would rather not have a further comment period. ICM indicated a clear preference for the Board to act as soon as possible on the existing proposal based on documents that had already been available for public comment since 05 January 2007. John's view was that the Board's position had been consistent since the .NET agreement that any change should be posted for a public comment period. However, John believed that it was the Board's task to evaluate the posted 5 January version and that only if the Board did not agree that this was sufficient should the Board discuss whether or not to post a revised Appendix S for public comment.

There was some discussion by a variety of Board members and Liaisons including Vint Cerf, Sharil Tarmizi, Rita Rodin, and Steve Goldstein suggesting that the new version should be posted highlighting the revised Appendix S, which would show the differences between the version of Appendix S posted on 05 January 2007 and the new version of Appendix S. Vint Cerf said that he viewed the changes in Appendix S as being centered on ICANN's ability to enforce conditions on ICM. There was not similar concentration upon what ICM can do to enforce conditions on Registrants. However, Susan Crawford indicated there was a section of the proposed contract that provided for ICM to enforce some conditions on Registrants.

Paul Twomey made a procedural point that the Board at its Luxembourg meeting (July 2005) decided that any document that may affect a third party, would always be posted for a comment period of 21 days.

Rita Rodin asked if there was a consensus that the Board should post the revised Appendix S for comment. John Jeffrey agreed that if the Board wanted to discuss the new Appendix S, that a sufficient a case for posting seemed to be established.

polish_aristocrat · 02-15-2007, 05:18 PM

part 2....

Quote:

Vint Cerf asked for clarification on the issue of non-resolving registrations. He asked whether a request for a domain name not to resolve would incur a request for payment to the Registrar. That is, would payment be required to ensure that a name linked to a .XXX domain would not resolve. John Jeffrey advised that the agreement would permit ICM to charge in these circumstances. Susan Crawford added that ICM had made it clear however that such requests would be "deeply discounted" and would probably be limited to cost recovery. Susan noted ICM was attempting to address concerns in advance by individuals who may believe their name or some other words of significance should be prevented from resolving to a .XXX domain with a payment of a minimal fee.

Rita Rodin stated that she believed it was important to separate visceral or emotional feelings from the technical criteria when making a decision about the proposed .XXX domain. She noted that she was not on the Board during the previous discussions on .XXX and thus in preparation for the meeting had reviewed the materials prepared by staff and other information available about the proposed domain. Based on this review she had some concerns about whether the proposal met the criteria set forth in the RFP. For example, she noted that it was not clear to her whether the sponsoring community seeking to run the domain genuinely could be said to represent the adult on-line community. However Rita requested that John Jeffrey and Paul Twomey confirm that this sort of discussion should take place during this meeting. She said that she did not want to reopen issues if they had already had been decided by the Board.

Vint Cerf noted that had been the subject of debate by the Board in earlier discussions in 2006. He said that representatives of ICM had given a one-hour presentation at ICANN's Mar del Plata Meeting in April 2005 where they demonstrated what they believed was support from the adult online community. However, Vint said that it was his belief that in recent times (over the last six months) there seemed to have been a more negative reaction from members of the adult online community to the proposal. Rita Rodin agreed, saying that a review of the materials indicates that there seems to be a "splintering" of support in the adult on-line community. She thought this splintering suggested there may not be widespread support within the adult online community for the proposal. She was also concerned that approval of this domain in these circumstances would cause ICM to become a de facto arbiter of policies for pornography on the Internet. She expressed the view that she was not comfortable with ICANN saying to a self-defined group that they could define policy around pornography on the Internet. This was not part of ICANN's technical decision-making remit, she believed.

Kurt Pritz said that the last time ICANN had asked ICM to demonstrate support from the adult online community they had provided written support from about 24 major suppliers of adult online content. He acknowledged that ICANN had not asked ICM specifically about their level of support since the Board's decision on .XXX in June 2005.

Paul Twomey said the Board needed to focus in this discussion on the three issues presented, which he stated as whether there was a requirement for additional public comment period for the new version of Appendix S; clarification of issues to do with GAC advice ? for example, whether additional public policy advice was expected following the Wellington CommuniquĂ© and the status of the letter from the Chair and Chair elect; and whether ICM had demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that it had met criteria against the RFP for sTLDs.

Vint Cerf agreed that the sponsorship grouping for a new TLD was difficult to define. He noted that consideration of .MOBI and .TRAVEL had been made more complex by this feature. He thought the intent of establishing a defined sponsorship community was to "hand off" policy development to the sponsoring group, so that ICANN would not be in the position of formulating policy but would be making decisions based on technical parameters. However, he believed what had happened in the case of the .XXX proposal was that a "thicket of regulation" had been created, but it was not clear if this will apply to a significant proportion of the online community or not.

Susan Crawford expressed the view that no group can demonstrate in advance that they will meet the interests and concerns of all members in their community and that this was an unrealistic expectation to place on any applicant. She also said that if that test was applied to any sponsor group for a new sTLD, none would ever be approved.

Roberto Gaetano said that he believed that there was significant opposition from the adult entertainment industry as they come to understand the repercussions and operation of this domain. He thought a substantial number in that community had changed their mind over the last six months. He said when the Board has evidence of substantial opposition that must be taken into account. He noted for .TRAVEL the Board had only one statement of opposition. In this case there had been hundreds.

Rita Rodin echoed what she saw as both Vint and Roberto's views. She believed that the reason ICANN had public comment periods was to take into account the views expressed during them. If the Board does not pay attention to those views, she said, this would support the oft-mentioned argument that the Board does pay attention to the community.

Raimundo Beca said he believed three things were relevant. First, the Board needed to determine whether to go to a further period of consultation of 21 days for the new version of Appendix S. Second, that there was substantial opposition that had been recorded in recent times. Third, that the Board needed a letter from ICM demonstrating that they had continued support from the majority of the adult online entertainment industry.

The Acting Chair indicated that he sensed from listening to the discussion that a majority of Board members held "serious concerns" about the level of support for the creation of the domain from the particular sponsoring community. He conducted a "straw poll" by asking each Board member and Liaison to express their view in relation to this matter, recognizing that Liaisons do not have a vote. He indicated he held serious concerns. Other Board Members and Liaisons who identified themselves as having "serious concerns" included Vint Cerf, Steve Goldstein, Rita Rodin, Roberto Gaetano, Vanda Scartezini, Demi Getschko, Sharil Tarmizi, Raimundo Beca, Vittorio Bertola and Suzanne Woolf. Vittorio Bertola noted that notwithstanding his concerns the ALAC did not yet have a final and unanimous view on whether the domain should be created or not, and in any case, as it had said previously, did not support the requirement of the sponsorship for new TLDs in itself.

Susan Crawford, Joichi Ito, and Dave Wodelet stated that they did not have serious concerns about the sponsorship criteria, and expressed the view that it was an inappropriate burden to place on ICM to ensure that the entire adult online community was supportive of the proposed domain. Paul Twomey expressed the view that he had concerns but had not reached a final conclusion as to their seriousness. Susan Crawford also wanted it made clear in the minutes of the meeting that a self-described community of sponsorship for the proposed domain was sufficient for some members of the Board including herself.

luv$ · 02-15-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

That proves that those GFY'ers who said "you are stupid if you think your letter to ICANN will make a difference" were wrong

Good news right there.

Thanks for the post man.

polish_aristocrat · 02-15-2007, 05:20 PM

part 3....

Quote:

Following this discussion, Alejandro Pisanty moved and Vint Cerf seconded a request for a vote on the following resolution:

Whereas, a majority of the Board has serious concerns about whether the proposed .XXX domain has the support of a clearly-defined sponsored community as per the criteria for sponsored TLDs;

Whereas, a minority of the Board believed that the self described community of sponsorship made known by the proponent of the .XXX domain, ICM Registry, was sufficient to meet the criteria for an sTLD.

Resolved (07.08) that:

the revised version of Appendix S be exposed to a public comment period of no less than 21 days; and
ICANN Staff consult with ICM and provide further information to the Board prior to its next meeting, so as to inform a decision by the Board about whether sponsorship criteria is met for the creation of a new .XXX sTLD.
The Board approved the resolution unanimously, by voice vote.

Paul Twomey requested that issues regarding the GAC letter and GAC advice be discussed further at the next Board meeting. Sharil Tarmizi said that the letter from the Chair and Chair-Elect of the GAC, had been provided to the Board after its meeting on 16 January 2007 and was a response that had been signed off by Janis Karklins and himself rather than the whole GAC. Janis clarified that an unfortunate miscommunication led to a rescheduling of the GAC conference call on 17 January 2007 and that had prevented broader participation. Those GAC members who participated in the call felt that the GAC had to respond ICANN's call for comments. The first draft response was sent to the GAC mailing list and subsequent comments received led to further redrafting. A final version of the letter was sent to the GAC mailing list and GAC members had a final opportunity to comment, in the absence of which, the final draft would be adopted as the version to be sent out to ICANN. No comments were received and the letter was sent to the Chairman of ICANN. Janis stressed that the letter should not be considered as formal advice since no formal request has been received from the Board. He reiterated that the Wellington Communique remains a valid and important expression of the GAC's views on the proposed .XXX domain. Susan Crawford asked what particular concerns governments had and Janis Karklins referred to the GAC Wellington CommuniquĂ? is the only formal expression of the GAC on this matter.

Splum · 02-15-2007, 05:21 PM

***yawn***

JFK · 02-15-2007, 06:01 PM

Thanks.....

BoyAlley · 02-15-2007, 06:10 PM

Ah, sounds like this might be some good news, thanks for posting it polish.

Under what guise ICANN is allowed to keep these 24 supporting letters private is above and beyond me. Seems to me they should be public like everything else, so that the "community" can respond to them.

The very fact that those issuing letters of support are demanding they remain private, should show that they're afraid of repercussions, which should logically show that there is indeed a major lack of support in the sponsoring community.

seeric · 02-15-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

ICM has presented opinions of 24 MAJOR online adult content suppliers who support .xxx

cats in the cradle.

on other notes, i did read the entire brief. far from over.

suck it to the slime that are attempting to get over on everyone.

seeric · 02-15-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Ah, sounds like this might be some good news, thanks for posting it polish.

Under what guise ICANN is allowed to keep these 24 supporting letters private is above and beyond me. Seems to me they should be public like everything else, so that the "community" can respond to them.

The very fact that those issuing letters of support are demanding they remain private, should show that they're afraid of repercussions, which should logically show that there is indeed a major lack of support in the sponsoring community.

i don't think icann knows. it sounds like ICM is keeping them quiet the way i read it.

pornguy · 02-15-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Ah, sounds like this might be some good news, thanks for posting it polish.

Under what guise ICANN is allowed to keep these 24 supporting letters private is above and beyond me. Seems to me they should be public like everything else, so that the "community" can respond to them.

The very fact that those issuing letters of support are demanding they remain private, should show that they're afraid of repercussions, which should logically show that there is indeed a major lack of support in the sponsoring community.

I agree, and this should be taken 1 step further. If they have 24 letters that agree, and they get 25 that disagree, then the majority wins. I know that I sent a letter in that I DO NOT APPROVE of it.

abyss_al · 02-15-2007, 06:50 PM

good read.. thnx

Brad Mitchell · 02-15-2007, 06:53 PM

That is good news, it sounds like the ICANN members (at least some of them) are starting to pay attention to the masses that do not support .XXX. Even on this forum which has thousands of participating webmasters we can't find 23 companies that support .XXX - it doesn't even seem that we can find more than a few total, that is companies of actual substance and size - I can't say that I've seen ONE yet admit to supporting it.

Brad

Brujah · 02-15-2007, 07:06 PM

Looks like Susan Crawford really wants the .XXX approved!

Now that it's not too late, some Major sponsors and Video companies should get their letters drawn up and submit them in opposition.

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 07:17 PM

It would seem that those 24 companies that wrote letters of support for .XXX a few years ago, that if they changed their mind, they should probably draft a letter to state they are now against.

I believe supporting .XXX in the past, but renouncing it now, would most likely be "forgiven" by the community, rather than holding silence.

Fight the .silence!

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 07:39 PM

"John Jeffrey noted that he was informed that the meeting [xbiz forum in LA] had taken place approximately one week earlier, and that Stuart Lawley of ICM had participated in a panel discussion. John also indicated that he was informed that it was sparsely attended and that there was no transcript of the panel discussion at this point."

gotta love luke this time for his tape recording of the opening of the .XXX session

(.wav file http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/xxxdomain1.wav )

where i ask, through clapping, who was against .XXX

By the round of clapping, i would say that it wasn't sparsely attended.

Video and transcript are coming.

Fight the ovation!

tony286 · 02-15-2007, 08:04 PM

I wonder why the 24 ball less are hiding? Also all the people that did a good show of saying their against it but no letter to icann.

Trax · 02-15-2007, 08:09 PM

any company supporting .xxx in this industry will lose my business for sure
just in case names get published

tony286 · 02-15-2007, 08:11 PM

Brandon Why arent the 24 that support it on public record,it seems everything else is ? Also fuck the 24 there are how many webmasters? I didnt think a community is just 24 out of 50,000

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Brandon Why arent the 24 that support it on public record

lawley answered that question by saying they had confidentiality clauses.

most likely for fear of some kind of retaliation that everyone is talking about, so it would be understandable that those that gave support would want to be held private.. but this fact alone should demonstrate to the ICANN board members that the "community" does not want .XXX if those that support it can't publically state their support.

Some ICANN members are still referencing things from the past.. some of those 24 supportors have now changed their mind after fast forwarding a few more years, seeing 2257 issues creep up, etc.

Those that gave their support before need to contact ICANN to let them know they are now opposed, because otherwise, their company name from the past letters of support are still being used.

Fight the partying like it was 1999!

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Also fuck the 24 there are how many webmasters? I didnt think a community is just 24 out of 50,000

ya, but it might be possible that say a large program owner says they support it and they could say they have thousands of affiliate webmasters under them... so its possible to have 23 large programs throw in some doublespeak of stats to say they have a large number of webmasters who do support .XXX that they represent.

Fight the speaking onbehalf of their affiliates!

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 09:18 PM

There is still some hope to fight this .XXX battle on the grounds of proving that the "sponsored community" definition of "responsible webmasters who want labeling" is not a correct one.. that the "sponsored community" should be adult webmasters.

I am encouraged by the comments made by ICANN board members as they are aware of the great opposition.

So it would be really, really, really good if program owners emailed their affilaites to voice their opposition.

Send comments to: [email protected]
View comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/

The ICANN board is still open and accepting comments... so get yourself onthe record as a program owner or affiliate on your position about .XXX

Fight the .XXX!

Barefootsies · 02-15-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

The ICANN Board of directors had a recent meeting on Monday, 12th February 2007.
I will quote the complete and detailed summary of everything which has been discussed on the meeting in regard to the proposed .xxx domain.
Everyone really interested in this subject should take his time to read it to get an idea how things look right now....

For those who are too lazy - a short summary:

Basically ICANN spent LOTS OF TIME to discuss whether or not .xxx has sponsored community (adult webmasters support).

So unlike some prominent members of this board said, this proves again that ICANN values our opinions a lot since they really spent lots of time dicsussing issues related to the support for .XXX (or lack of it) among adult webmasters.

They have made clear that in recent public comments period substantial input regarding .xxx has been received and that it seems like .xxx has major opposition among the sponsored community.
Many ICANN board members expressed the view that it seems to them like the opposition towards .xxx has increased recently.

They also spoke about the Xbiz conference but unfortunately they had not enough material on what happened at the seminar.

Then the board also VOTED on whether it seems to them if .xxx has sufficient community support or not, and the result of the vote was that the majority of ICANN board members have the feeling that .xxx has not enough community support. They will request more input from ICM regarding this, since they stated that ICM has presented opinions of 24 MAJOR online adult content suppliers who support .xxx ( no company names are mentioned obviously ).

Another minor thing that they discussed was - whether a recent change in the proposed contract (the revised version of Appendix S) should be subject to another period of public comments. It looks like indeed it will be the case so we can expect a new 3 weeks public comments period soon again

Basically the message is quite good to us in the way that it shows that unlike some people think, ICANN clearly is concerned whether or not .xxx has sufficient adult webmasters community support. That proves that those GFY'ers who said "you are stupid if you think your letter to ICANN will make a difference" were wrong

It will be interesting to see how this evolves....

minusonebit · 02-15-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

So unlike some prominent members of this board said, this proves again that ICANN values our opinions a lot since they really spent lots of time dicsussing issues related to the support for .XXX (or lack of it) among adult webmasters.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that ICANN cares about your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's opinion, go ahead. George Bush spent lots of time discussing the war in Iraq. Doesn't mean he cares what we think about it. But none the less, this might be good news. I don't know. I think we are missing the big picture all together (like usual) and that big picture is why ICANN is even being allowed to consider this to begin with?

The internet was never supposed to be commercialized. Oh well, too late un-ring that bell. The internet was also never supposed to be censored. It already is to a great degree (NeuStar stole some of my .us domains because they didn't like my use of the word "fuck") but its never too late to un-ring that bell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Ah, sounds like this might be some good news, thanks for posting it polish.

Under what guise ICANN is allowed to keep these 24 supporting letters private is above and beyond me. Seems to me they should be public like everything else, so that the "community" can respond to them.

The very fact that those issuing letters of support are demanding they remain private, should show that they're afraid of repercussions, which should logically show that there is indeed a major lack of support in the sponsoring community.

NO! This is common sense! We cannot have any of it!

Brujah · 02-15-2007, 09:50 PM

Affiliates here right now should write their sponsors, and ask them their stance on .XXX and if they would write a letter to ICANN on behalf of their company in opposition.

seeric · 02-15-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Brandon Why arent the 24 that support it on public record,it seems everything else is ? Also fuck the 24 there are how many webmasters? I didnt think a community is just 24 out of 50,000

Hmmmmmn. Me wonders. I learned that I am best kept away from sharp objects, things that break easily, and delicate little daisies. I'm best utilized disseminating information and keeping the troops motivated on shit. Kinda like an un-gay cheerleader of sorts. If .XXX is still on the chopping block, be prepared to see many more people than me getting people active in their community. The army is growing. It ain't over till WE say. It's obvious ICANN does and will listen to what the "little people" have to say as we all have been called. The "big fish" are alone and they can't use their voice because they are all hiding in premeditated victory. It's time to get stronger against this. 50000 piranha against 24 sharks with no teeth would be no match. Thats my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Me thinky that those 24 "big fish" are speaking for their entire affilaite base and for many of YOU! You'd better make it known that no one speaks for you when the next comments period opens.

tony286 · 02-15-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

Hmmmmmn. Me wonders. I learned that I am best kept away from sharp objects, things that break easily, and delicate little daisies. I'm best utilized disseminating information and keeping the troops motivated on shit. Kinda like an un-gay cheerleader of sorts. If .XXX is still on the chopping block, be prepared to see many more people than me getting people active in their community. The army is growing. It ain't over till WE say. It's obvious ICANN does and will listen to what the "little people" have to say as we all have been called. The "big fish" are alone and they can't use their voice because they are all hiding in premeditated victory. It's time to get stronger against this. 50000 piranha against 24 sharks with no teeth would be no match. Thats my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Me thinky that those 24 "big fish" are speaking for their entire affilaite base and for many of YOU! You'd better make it known that no one speaks for you when the next comments period opens.

Man you rock, I think they can post comments now, it was never closed.Lets all get the word out.

seeric · 02-15-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Man you rock, I think they can post comments now, it was never closed.Lets all get the word out.

cool.

i thought they had closed it, but its great that they haven't, that also says something about this whole "its a done deal bullshit."

done deal my ass. even if it got approved its no where close to done.

FightThisPatent · 02-15-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

...."its a done deal bullshit."

it's not a "done deal" until ICANN votes.. but if you read the latest ICANN posting. the president (paul twomey) as well as some other ICANN board members are pushing the .XXX approval angle... Follow the name John Jeffrey in the ICANN letter.. he definitely has some agenda going on.. referring to his believe that the .XXX session at xbiz was not well attended, etc. lots of things to correct him on.

Fight the fat lady!

paymeback · 02-15-2007, 11:23 PM

some good news, lets keep this up top

polish_aristocrat · 02-16-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

There is still some hope to fight this .XXX battle on the grounds of proving that the "sponsored community" definition of "responsible webmasters who want labeling" is not a correct one.. that the "sponsored community" should be adult webmasters.

that is what i have been saying all the time. But you seemed somehow convinced by Stuart Lawley that it's not the case.... Thanks God this single time you were a little wrong.

Quote:

So it would be really, really, really good if program owners emailed their affilaites to voice their opposition.

Send comments to: [email protected]
View comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/.

yeah, but we said it already 6 weeks ago

I am also not sure if they are still reading that forum. As I said it looks like they might open a new forum soon again, to discuss amendix S (whatever it is about).

It also looks like the current forum got suddenly heavily populated with emails from religious groups...

check it for yourself... although they are a little late, heh

http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/

Quote:

Originally Posted by minusonebit

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that ICANN cares about your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's opinion, go ahead. George Bush spent lots of time discussing the war in Iraq.

I really think they care about our opinion. Looks like their decision process is quite transparent...

anyway, the only thing that sucks is that their counted all those one sentence letters "i will use .xxx pls go ahead with it" sent from free email adresses, as opinions of real adult webmasters during this public comments period. So they said 77% webmasters opposed .xxx and 16% supported it in the public comments forum. If more people sent their anti-.xxx letters, it would be 95:5%

d00t · 02-16-2007, 05:52 AM

Perhaps the 24 companies supporting .xxx are companies all owned by ICM and therefore don't want that published for obvious reasons...

jayeff · 02-16-2007, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Even on this forum which has thousands of participating webmasters we can't find 23 companies that support .XXX - it doesn't even seem that we can find more than a few total, that is companies of actual substance and size - I can't say that I've seen ONE yet admit to supporting it.

Unfortunately, if you were an ICANN member, you could reasonably be looking at this from the point of view that 24 "names" have supported this TLD. They may have chosen to do so secretly as far as hiding their identity from others in this industry, but they are known to ICANN and presumably their support was presented in a credible manner.

Against that, despite - as you point out - the many who visit this board alone, the opposition hasn't been especially numerous and a lot of the objections skated close to GFY "style". Above all, with some honorable exceptions, were missing objections from sponsors, designers, hosting companies, etc who are not among the 24 supporters. Nor, although it is rumored that some of those 24 have changed their mind, AFAIK none have made that known directly to ICANN.

The point I am trying to make is that if I were an industry outsider, as the ICANN board members are, I could easily interpret the picture as one in which leading, legitimate businesses are in favor of this TLD and such opposition as there is, being mainly from individual webmasters: the very people I would suspect most of pushing the envelope and whose activities bring about the perceived need for this TLD in the first place.

We know that so long as parents will not filter what their children see, XXX will be no more effective than any other kind of labelling. We know that profit motive is the only reason ICM or its secret supporters want this TLD and that they have no interest whatever in protecting minors. But if you were an outsider, you know none of these things and if you are presented with a coherent argument, apparently backed by the major players of the industry concerned, you likely would take notice.

As seems to always be the case when we face major issues, most people sat on their hands. Somehow, if there is another chance to voice our opposition, we need to get more people on board, but in particular we need to get more named businesses on board. If ICM can find 24 companies to sign up in support, we need to find many more who will sign up in opposition. And maybe, instead of their opposition being lost among the 77%, they need to sign a common presentation.

Not only should this be more effective, but this is not an issue which allows for fence sitting. Without opposition, eventually this TLD will be created, which really does mean that if you are not publicly against it, then in effect you are supporting it.

GeorgeK · 02-16-2007, 12:59 PM

*Bump*

ICANN has a mission to be transparent, so making that list of 24 "secret supporters" is important if ICANN (and ICM) are to have any shred of credibility. You shouldn't be able to get a Top-Level-Domain with secret lists of supporters, while also forcing opponents to make their opposition be PUBLIC.

Imagine if both the list of supporters AND opponents were kept secret -- no one would have a clue whether ICANN's Board was operating appropriately. That's not good governance.

polish_aristocrat · 02-16-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

ICANN has a mission to be transparent, so making that list of 24 "secret supporters" is important if ICANN (and ICM) are to have any shred of credibility. You shouldn't be able to get a Top-Level-Domain with secret lists of supporters, while also forcing opponents to make their opposition be PUBLIC.

Imagine if both the list of supporters AND opponents were kept secret -- no one would have a clue whether ICANN's Board was operating appropriately. That's not good governance.

good points, maybe you could simply e-mail Vint Cerf and make that clear....

polish_aristocrat · 02-19-2007, 08:37 AM

BUMP for those who missed it

and check out also FightThisPatent's thread

http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/706874-official-xxx-petition-thread-xxx-step-inside.html

u-Bob · 02-19-2007, 10:48 AM

bump bump.

mx8829 · 02-19-2007, 02:10 PM

"bump" for a good cause.

davecummings · 02-19-2007, 04:57 PM

And another bump, because we need to still be agressively pursuing a defeat of .xxx.

F U S I O N · 02-19-2007, 05:24 PM

Bump....

titmowse · 02-26-2007, 11:29 PM

bumpers

spacedog · 02-26-2007, 11:41 PM

any news on who the supporters are?

I wonder what monikers position is on .xxx

Perhaps an objection to the proposal from a reputable registrar would be helpful..

On another note.. I wonder why I haven't found any letters from any registrars at all.. they're awfully quiet

polish_aristocrat · 03-03-2007, 04:56 AM

next meeting - 13 March

davecummings · 03-04-2007, 08:47 AM

ICANN ICANN Email List Archives
[xxx-icm-agreement]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Part of The "Sponsored Community", like the VAST majority, I ask ICANN to Permanently Kill .xxx
To: <xxx-icm-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: As Part of The "Sponsored Community", like the VAST majority, I ask ICANN to Permanently Kill .xxx
From: "Dave C." <davec@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:54:35 -0800

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My stage name is "Dave Cummings" and, besides my www.davecummings.com website,
I own many adult dot.com domains. Contrary to ICM's subjective claims, I see
almost ZERO Sponsored Community support for .xxx, but I do indeed see
CONSIDERABLE opposition to it. Please permanently deny .xxx ---it's NOT wanted
by the Sponsored Community, and it's not an appropriate potential legal mess
for ICANN to become trapped into.

Sincerely,

Dave Cummings/D. Charles Conners

02-15-2007, 05:16 PM	#1
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	VERY IMPORTANT INFO - update RE proposed .XXX domain The ICANN Board of directors had a recent meeting on Monday, 12th February 2007. I will quote the complete and detailed summary of everything which has been discussed on the meeting in regard to the proposed .xxx domain. Everyone really interested in this subject should take his time to read it to get an idea how things look right now.... For those who are too lazy - a short summary: Basically ICANN spent LOTS OF TIME to discuss whether or not .xxx has sponsored community (adult webmasters support). So unlike some prominent members of this board said, this proves again that ICANN values our opinions a lot since they really spent lots of time dicsussing issues related to the support for .XXX (or lack of it) among adult webmasters. They have made clear that in recent public comments period substantial input regarding .xxx has been received and that it seems like .xxx has major opposition among the sponsored community. Many ICANN board members expressed the view that it seems to them like the opposition towards .xxx has increased recently. They also spoke about the Xbiz conference but unfortunately they had not enough material on what happened at the seminar. Then the board also VOTED on whether it seems to them if .xxx has sufficient community support or not, and the result of the vote was that the majority of ICANN board members have the feeling that .xxx has not enough community support. They will request more input from ICM regarding this, since they stated that ICM has presented opinions of 24 MAJOR online adult content suppliers who support .xxx ( no company names are mentioned obviously ). Another minor thing that they discussed was - whether a recent change in the proposed contract (the revised version of Appendix S) should be subject to another period of public comments. It looks like indeed it will be the case so we can expect a new 3 weeks public comments period soon again Basically the message is quite good to us in the way that it shows that unlike some people think, ICANN clearly is concerned whether or not .xxx has sufficient adult webmasters community support. That proves that those GFY'ers who said "you are stupid if you think your letter to ICANN will make a difference" were wrong It will be interesting to see how this evolves.... __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

02-15-2007, 06:01 PM	#7
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	Thanks..... __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

02-15-2007, 06:50 PM	#12
abyss_al LOOKING FOR TRADES Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 15,605	good read.. thnx __________________ EMAIL: allen @ vasmediagroup.com \| ICQ: 311329761 \| SKYPE: abyss.al \| AIM: xABYSSxALx

02-15-2007, 06:53 PM	#13
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,812	That is good news, it sounds like the ICANN members (at least some of them) are starting to pay attention to the masses that do not support .XXX. Even on this forum which has thousands of participating webmasters we can't find 23 companies that support .XXX - it doesn't even seem that we can find more than a few total, that is companies of actual substance and size - I can't say that I've seen ONE yet admit to supporting it. Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

02-15-2007, 07:06 PM	#14
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Looks like Susan Crawford really wants the .XXX approved! Now that it's not too late, some Major sponsors and Video companies should get their letters drawn up and submit them in opposition. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

02-15-2007, 05:21 PM	#6
Splum Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 6,195	*yawn*

02-15-2007, 06:10 PM	#8
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	Ah, sounds like this might be some good news, thanks for posting it polish. Under what guise ICANN is allowed to keep these 24 supporting letters private is above and beyond me. Seems to me they should be public like everything else, so that the "community" can respond to them. The very fact that those issuing letters of support are demanding they remain private, should show that they're afraid of repercussions, which should logically show that there is indeed a major lack of support in the sponsoring community.

02-15-2007, 07:17 PM	#15
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	It would seem that those 24 companies that wrote letters of support for .XXX a few years ago, that if they changed their mind, they should probably draft a letter to state they are now against. I believe supporting .XXX in the past, but renouncing it now, would most likely be "forgiven" by the community, rather than holding silence. Fight the .silence! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

02-15-2007, 07:39 PM	#16
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	"John Jeffrey noted that he was informed that the meeting [xbiz forum in LA] had taken place approximately one week earlier, and that Stuart Lawley of ICM had participated in a panel discussion. John also indicated that he was informed that it was sparsely attended and that there was no transcript of the panel discussion at this point." gotta love luke this time for his tape recording of the opening of the .XXX session (.wav file http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/xxxdomain1.wav ) where i ask, through clapping, who was against .XXX By the round of clapping, i would say that it wasn't sparsely attended. Video and transcript are coming. Fight the ovation! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

02-15-2007, 08:04 PM	#17
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I wonder why the 24 ball less are hiding? Also all the people that did a good show of saying their against it but no letter to icann.

02-15-2007, 08:09 PM	#18
Trax [----------------------] Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,486	any company supporting .xxx in this industry will lose my business for sure just in case names get published

02-15-2007, 08:11 PM	#19
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Brandon Why arent the 24 that support it on public record,it seems everything else is ? Also fuck the 24 there are how many webmasters? I didnt think a community is just 24 out of 50,000 Last edited by tony299; 02-15-2007 at 08:12 PM..

02-15-2007, 09:18 PM	#22
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	There is still some hope to fight this .XXX battle on the grounds of proving that the "sponsored community" definition of "responsible webmasters who want labeling" is not a correct one.. that the "sponsored community" should be adult webmasters. I am encouraged by the comments made by ICANN board members as they are aware of the great opposition. So it would be really, really, really good if program owners emailed their affilaites to voice their opposition. Send comments to: [email protected] View comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/ The ICANN board is still open and accepting comments... so get yourself onthe record as a program owner or affiliate on your position about .XXX Fight the .XXX! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

02-15-2007, 09:50 PM	#25
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Affiliates here right now should write their sponsors, and ask them their stance on .XXX and if they would write a letter to ICANN on behalf of their company in opposition. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

02-15-2007, 11:23 PM	#30
paymeback Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 1,478	some good news, lets keep this up top __________________ ICQ:36-43-49-11

02-16-2007, 05:52 AM	#32
d00t Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In your mind Posts: 3,766	Perhaps the 24 companies supporting .xxx are companies all owned by ICM and therefore don't want that published for obvious reasons...

02-16-2007, 12:59 PM	#34
GeorgeK Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 423	Bump ICANN has a mission to be transparent, so making that list of 24 "secret supporters" is important if ICANN (and ICM) are to have any shred of credibility. You shouldn't be able to get a Top-Level-Domain with secret lists of supporters, while also forcing opponents to make their opposition be PUBLIC. Imagine if both the list of supporters AND opponents were kept secret -- no one would have a clue whether ICANN's Board was operating appropriately. That's not good governance. __________________ I buy good domain names. Send lists to George (at) LOFFS.com

02-19-2007, 08:37 AM	#36
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	BUMP for those who missed it and check out also FightThisPatent's thread http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/706874-official-xxx-petition-thread-xxx-step-inside.html __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

02-19-2007, 10:48 AM	#37
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	bump bump.

02-19-2007, 02:10 PM	#38
mx8829 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 891	"bump" for a good cause. __________________ contact jambojack at gmail

02-19-2007, 04:57 PM	#39
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	And another bump, because we need to still be agressively pursuing a defeat of .xxx.

02-19-2007, 05:24 PM	#40
F U S I O N Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,898	Bump....

02-26-2007, 11:29 PM	#41
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	bumpers __________________ I still love everybody

02-26-2007, 11:41 PM	#42
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	any news on who the supporters are? I wonder what monikers position is on .xxx Perhaps an objection to the proposal from a reputable registrar would be helpful.. On another note.. I wonder why I haven't found any letters from any registrars at all.. they're awfully quiet Last edited by spacedog; 02-26-2007 at 11:42 PM..

03-03-2007, 04:56 AM	#43
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	next meeting - 13 March __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

03-04-2007, 08:47 AM	#44
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	ICANN ICANN Email List Archives [xxx-icm-agreement] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Part of The "Sponsored Community", like the VAST majority, I ask ICANN to Permanently Kill .xxx To: <xxx-icm-agreement@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: As Part of The "Sponsored Community", like the VAST majority, I ask ICANN to Permanently Kill .xxx From: "Dave C." <davec@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:54:35 -0800 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My stage name is "Dave Cummings" and, besides my www.davecummings.com website, I own many adult dot.com domains. Contrary to ICM's subjective claims, I see almost ZERO Sponsored Community support for .xxx, but I do indeed see CONSIDERABLE opposition to it. Please permanently deny .xxx ---it's NOT wanted by the Sponsored Community, and it's not an appropriate potential legal mess for ICANN to become trapped into. Sincerely, Dave Cummings/D. Charles Conners