Internet Commerce Association Opposes Approval of the Revised .XXX Agreement....

[polish_aristocrat]

'Internet Commerce Association Opposes Approval of the Revised Proposed Agreement on .XXX and Urges Rejection with Finality"


they took their time to write 20 pages explaining why .xxx should NOT be approved

http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm.../msg00614.html


cant say I have read it all, but looks like a great post

[shermo]

Looks like a glimmer of hope for us. I wonder how final a finality is? Hahah!

[BoyAlley]

Wow, what an impressive response! I'm going to print it out and read it later on tonight, looks like an interesting read.

[seeric]

i will read this tonight as my brain slows down and the melatonin kicks in. very good that they did this too.

[reynold]

I wonder if it will make any difference.

[DateDoc]

interesting.....

ICM's pledge to allocate $10 per year to IFFOR is little more than a pledge to take this money out of one of its pockets and place it in another. A check of the current WHOIS information for the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (www.iffor.org <http://www.iffor.org/> ) shows that it is registered to none other than Stuart Lawley, the President and CEO of ICM registry.

[baddog]

interesting.....

nice try

[baddog]

I find this interesting:

The ICA takes no position on the general question of whether it is appropriate
to authorize any specialized top level domain (TLD), including .XXX, with the
intent and expectation that it host explicit adult sexual content. However, we
would oppose any requirement that content of a particular nature, including
sexual content, be hosted and located solely at specifically designated TLD.
The DNS should not be utilized as a means of zoning the Internet for the
purpose of segregating content of any nature, as any fiat to that effect
inevitably involves registries in the classification and possible censorship of
content, and also requires ICANN to stray far from its narrow and proper
mission in order to enforce the operative provisions of registry agreements and
overarching ICANN policies.

They are against it for every other reason.

[DateDoc]

nice try

What? It is ok that ICM pays itself to regulate itself? IFFOR is supposed to be independent of .XXX

[baddog]

I think some good questions for Lawley can be pulled out of this thing.

[baddog]

What? It is ok that ICM pays itself to regulate itself? IFFOR is supposed to be independent of .XXX

Nice try on his part. He should have offered himself more though.

[DateDoc]

ICANN's Board previously found the proposed .XXX agreement to be so deficient in merit that is was rejected by a nearly 2-1 vote. In our view the proposed "cure" of the RPA under consideration is substantially worse than the original proposal and deserves unanimous rejection.

[SomeCreep]

Does anyone actually think .xxx has a chance of being passed? It doesn't.

[seeric]

hahahaha stuart your ass is grasssssss. lol.

[baddog]

Does anyone actually think .xxx has a chance of being passed? It doesn't.

ever or this time?

[tony286]

I read the whole letter, great points best letter I have read to date.

[polish_aristocrat]

Does anyone actually think .xxx has a chance of being passed? It doesn't.

Unfortunately you're wrong.... but I guess if ICANN declines 8:7 the .xxx again, you'll say that you were right from the beginning and all our effort was a waste of time.

[drjones]

They really call ICANN out and ICM out on a lot of things in this letter... doesnt pull any punches at all. Its great.

"Mr. Lawley's interpretation of events makes a mockery of ICANN's consensus
process and of the time and effort expended by numerous commentators with a
serious interest in this controversial matter. In fact, regardless of the
Board's ultimate decision, we would think it would wish to initiate its own
inquiry to determine whether any member of ICANN staff provided encouragement
for Mr. Lawley's apparent view that the ultimate adoption of some .XXX registry
contract has been a certainty since mid-2005. Surely, it cannot be the case
that ICANN's initial decision to enter into negotiations with the applicant for
a proposed sponsored TLD constitutes a guarantee that such negotiation will
inevitably result in the approval and signing of a final agreement. If that is
ICANN's negotiating posture it is volunteering to be at a disadvantage at every
bargaining table, and is also telling the community that it only has power to
influence the terms of such proposals but has no power to successfully oppose
their approval."


"ICANN's Board previously found the proposed .XXX agreement to be so deficient
in merit that is was rejected by a nearly 2-1 vote. In our view the proposed
"cure" of the RPA under consideration is substantially worse than the original
proposal and deserves unanimous rejection. It would implicate ICANN in areas
far outside its technical mandate and would set s series of terrible precedents
that would disfigure the fundamental purpose of the DNS."

^^^ this is the bottom line

[polish_aristocrat]

In fact, regardless of the
Board's ultimate decision, we would think it would wish to initiate its own
inquiry to determine whether any member of ICANN staff provided encouragement
for Mr. Lawley's apparent view that the ultimate adoption of some .XXX registry
contract has been a certainty since mid-2005. Surely, it cannot be the case
that ICANN's initial decision to enter into negotiations with the applicant for
a proposed sponsored TLD constitutes a guarantee that such negotiation will
inevitably result in the approval and signing of a final agreement. If that is
ICANN's negotiating posture it is volunteering to be at a disadvantage at every
bargaining table, and is also telling the community that it only has power to
influence the terms of such proposals but has no power to successfully oppose
their approval."

good point

[Dcat]

nice

[great]

Great letter. I see that it explains everything that happened. I believe that's good for us to know.

[sole]

I think they will never approve a .XXX domain. There are too many shy guy in the comity.

[anal sex]

I wonder if it will make any difference.

It will make? At least for us because we tried it out.

[Massage Parlor]

I think they will never approve a .XXX domain. There are too many shy guy in the comity.

My guess is that you do not know what you are talking about here and never bothered to read the previous posts.

[crockett]

My guess is that you do not know what you are talking about here and never bothered to read the previous posts.

Why do you keep bumping all the old .XXX posts? It's dead they voted against it.

[Screaming]

no pic of PA in this thread yet?

[JacksonFive]

I can't believe this, did you guys read this part: "the .XXX proposal would require ICANN, through its contract enforcement responsibilities, to become involved in areas that are far removed from its "limited and distinct mission", and that are already being addressed by national governments..." these power hungry snovabitches...