ICM Draft Contract--Are We Being Screwed Out of Our Opinions to/for ICANN? - GoFuckYourself.com

davecummings · 09-01-2010, 05:21 PM

In a posting today about .xxx (see the below link), the following copy/paste of four of the paragraphs reporting upon the ICM Draft Contract recently submitted to ICANN worries me that our Adult Internet Industry "Sponsored Community" comments concerning .xxx for ICANN's upcoming consideration might not be allowed per the ICM/Stuart Lawley draft contract for ICANN to vote on.

Shouldn't ALL input be considered by ICANN? Am I misreading this, or might we ACTUAL stakeholders possibly be denied our .xxx opinions and input to ICANN? Comments?

See the ENTIRE posting at http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=43831

-------------------------------------------------
HERE'S THE COPY/PASTE of THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FOUR PARAGRAPHS:

"First and foremost, ICM has agreed to fully indemnify ICANN against any legal action that results from its decision to approve .xxx, apparently introduced in response to fears that pornographers could sue to block .xxx's passage.

In addition, the part of the contract that spells out precisely who will be eligible to register a .xxx domain has been rejiggered to more clearly spell out a bizarre Catch-22 that detractors in the porn industry face.

In order to be considered a part of the .xxx Sponsored Community and register domains, a business not only has to provide adult-oriented products and services but also has to "have determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial".

Of course, opponents do not think that .xxx is beneficial, so they are by definition not part of the community. Technically, the only way they could become a part of the community, and have their objections taken on board as such, would be to drop their objections."
----------------------------------------------------
I wonder if the paragraph starting with "In order to be considered a part of the .xxx...." will not only fence out the religious postings, but also our's? What about those supposed 240 ICM supporters that inputted to ICANN during the last comment period, the ones that some folks doubted were actually in the Industry as stakeholders--will they be disallowed, or will it just be us REAL stakeholders who will not be allowed to provide comments to ICANN.

Again, FYI, here's the entire posting, not just the four above copy/pasted paragraphs!

http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=43831

davecummings · 09-02-2010, 08:51 AM

Quentin, what do you think? I value your thoughts on this matter. Thanks!

Barefootsies · 09-02-2010, 08:52 AM

*** crickets chirping***

Quentin · 09-02-2010, 09:06 AM

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.

u-Bob · 09-02-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

(i) have determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial

could help us to highlight the fact that such means of self-identification already exist and are already in use and that the ICM's proposal offers no additional benefits.

spazlabz · 09-02-2010, 10:09 AM

bump this should be at the top of the board for as long as possible. I wish it could be stickied there

Mr. Cool Ice · 09-02-2010, 10:25 AM

Here is the reality of .xxx. None of our opinions matter because the very people who are claiming to oppose it, are for it. From Xbiz on down and probably even the FSC. They all see a dying industry and know this is their last chance to cash in.

Dave, you know you can't trust anyone in this business especially when lots of money is on the table. All of these people will fuck your ass the first chance they get and smile while they do it. Xbiz even gave the guy a platform to speak. What did you expect?

marketsmart · 09-02-2010, 10:26 AM

i just laugh at these threads...

if the adult industry just boycotted .xxx, there would be no discussions...

but, in an industry that prides itself on fucking each other over, the .xxx tld will have plenty of purchasers...

.com's are never going away as the #1 tld.. however, i see this .xxx thing as having the potential to be a) required by law and b) filtered heavily by isp's..

it might take 5-10 years for that to happen, but i believe it is a possibility...

.

davecummings · 09-02-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Cool Ice

Here is the reality of .xxx. None of our opinions matter because the very people who are claiming to oppose it, are for it. From Xbiz on down and probably even the FSC. They all see a dying industry and know this is their last chance to cash in.

Dave, you know you can't trust anyone in this business especially when lots of money is on the table. All of these people will fuck your ass the first chance they get and smile while they do it. Xbiz even gave the guy a platform to speak. What did you expect?

I'm 100% convinced that FSC is totally on OUR side 100%

davecummings · 09-02-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

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":

And here's a few snippets from my comments addressing the most obvious and severe of the problems with that definition:

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.

Quentin to the rescue---thanks!:-)

pornstar2fag · 09-02-2010, 12:06 PM

FSC cleaning tubes 4 u

Mr. Cool Ice · 09-02-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I'm 100% convinced that FSC is totally on OUR side 100%

I hope you're right Dave. I really do.

Though, if memory serves there was a time when they (and Helmy) were going to get a slice of the pie and then reversed their stance. Yet here we are and nothing is getting done about it. .XXX seems to be picking up speed. Lawrey was given a platform to speak at Xbiz. Sometimes the painful truth is obvious even if you don't want to believe it.

There are two options here. 1) The FSC is set up to get a piece. 2) They are absolutely worthless.

We will never know. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager this will clear with flying colors. We can only hope sales are weak due to a sluggish industry and those who invested so much, lose everything.

Mr. Cool Ice · 09-02-2010, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

i just laugh at these threads...

if the adult industry just boycotted .xxx, there would be no discussions...

but, in an industry that prides itself on fucking each other over, the .xxx tld will have plenty of purchasers...

.com's are never going away as the #1 tld.. however, i see this .xxx thing as having the potential to be a) required by law and b) filtered heavily by isp's..

it might take 5-10 years for that to happen, but i believe it is a possibility...

.

Where are all the hot shot, big industry attorneys who RAPE companies with ridiculous rates? You would think it would be in their best interest to make sure the industry survives. Maybe I am being naive but with such brilliant minds, one would think they could put together a dream team to not only defeat .XXX, but 2257 and piracy issues as well.

davecummings · 09-02-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Cool Ice

I hope you're right Dave. I really do.

Though, if memory serves there was a time when they (and Helmy) were going to get a slice of the pie and then reversed their stance. Yet here we are and nothing is getting done about it. .XXX seems to be picking up speed. Lawrey was given a platform to speak at Xbiz. Sometimes the painful truth is obvious even if you don't want to believe it.

There are two options here. 1) The FSC is set up to get a piece. 2) They are absolutely worthless.

We will never know. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager this will clear with flying colors. We can only hope sales are weak due to a sluggish industry and those who invested so much, lose everything.

That matter was fully discussed in that exact/same Xbiz Discussion "platform" that you mentioned. I was at the FSC meeting where ICMs monetary offer was discussed AND DEFEATED (in spite of some so-called new members who joined before the meeting began and seemed to try to stack votes against our defeating the ICM offer--I wonder who/what recruited them and paid them to be there and vote the ICM way?). It was a Pre-Diane Duke meeting, but she has been absolutley great in defending us these past few years since she took over the reigns, and she has made FSC even better.

Reference your two options; I see another one, namely that we ALL need to make certain that past assumptions (many of which are incorrect!) about FSC don't keep us from supporting the absolutely fine work they NOW do; so my option 3 would be for us to contribute funding to FSC for them to have the means to continue fighting .xxx, Cal/OSHA, 2257, and piracy.

09-02-2010, 08:51 AM	#2
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Quentin, what do you think? I value your thoughts on this matter. Thanks! __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

09-02-2010, 08:52 AM	#3
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	* crickets chirping* __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

09-02-2010, 10:25 AM	#7
Mr. Cool Ice Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,289	Here is the reality of .xxx. None of our opinions matter because the very people who are claiming to oppose it, are for it. From Xbiz on down and probably even the FSC. They all see a dying industry and know this is their last chance to cash in. Dave, you know you can't trust anyone in this business especially when lots of money is on the table. All of these people will fuck your ass the first chance they get and smile while they do it. Xbiz even gave the guy a platform to speak. What did you expect? __________________ One Love NUR COOL UND GEIL

09-01-2010, 05:21 PM	#1
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	ICM Draft Contract--Are We Being Screwed Out of Our Opinions to/for ICANN? In a posting today about .xxx (see the below link), the following copy/paste of four of the paragraphs reporting upon the ICM Draft Contract recently submitted to ICANN worries me that our Adult Internet Industry "Sponsored Community" comments concerning .xxx for ICANN's upcoming consideration might not be allowed per the ICM/Stuart Lawley draft contract for ICANN to vote on. Shouldn't ALL input be considered by ICANN? Am I misreading this, or might we ACTUAL stakeholders possibly be denied our .xxx opinions and input to ICANN? Comments? See the ENTIRE posting at http://www.******.com/read.php?ID=43831 ------------------------------------------------- HERE'S THE COPY/PASTE of THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FOUR PARAGRAPHS: "First and foremost, ICM has agreed to fully indemnify ICANN against any legal action that results from its decision to approve .xxx, apparently introduced in response to fears that pornographers could sue to block .xxx's passage. In addition, the part of the contract that spells out precisely who will be eligible to register a .xxx domain has been rejiggered to more clearly spell out a bizarre Catch-22 that detractors in the porn industry face. In order to be considered a part of the .xxx Sponsored Community and register domains, a business not only has to provide adult-oriented products and services but also has to "have determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial". Of course, opponents do not think that .xxx is beneficial, so they are by definition not part of the community. Technically, the only way they could become a part of the community, and have their objections taken on board as such, would be to drop their objections." ---------------------------------------------------- I wonder if the paragraph starting with "In order to be considered a part of the .xxx...." will not only fence out the religious postings, but also our's? What about those supposed 240 ICM supporters that inputted to ICANN during the last comment period, the ones that some folks doubted were actually in the Industry as stakeholders--will they be disallowed, or will it just be us REAL stakeholders who will not be allowed to provide comments to ICANN. Again, FYI, here's the entire posting, not just the four above copy/pasted paragraphs! http://www.******.com/read.php?ID=43831 __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

09-02-2010, 10:09 AM	#6
spazlabz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Kentucky Posts: 6,548	bump this should be at the top of the board for as long as possible. I wish it could be stickied there

09-02-2010, 10:26 AM	#8
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	i just laugh at these threads... if the adult industry just boycotted .xxx, there would be no discussions... but, in an industry that prides itself on fucking each other over, the .xxx tld will have plenty of purchasers... .com's are never going away as the #1 tld.. however, i see this .xxx thing as having the potential to be a) required by law and b) filtered heavily by isp's.. it might take 5-10 years for that to happen, but i believe it is a possibility... .

09-02-2010, 12:06 PM	#11
pornstar2fag So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 544	FSC cleaning tubes 4 u