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

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.

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

Next step the bro club :thumbsup

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

only a faint hint right now ..............:winkwink:

Only time can change that, I suppose.



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

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

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)

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

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

An introduction might, as well. Who are you?

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?

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.

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

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's the same thing :upsidedow "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 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?

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. :eyecrazy

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 :upsidedow 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 :2 cents:

You go girl!

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

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

Anytime soon?

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.

Nice timing?:winkwink:

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? :BangBang:

What is IFFOR and what is ICM?

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:

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.

internet history in the making. bookmark this thread.

Okay that was great!

You know the drill, go fuck yourself.

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. :)

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

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