one fitty :thumbsup

[QUOTE=3piece chicken Dinner]This quote is taken from HERE in the context of the article it implys that .xxx will have a Best Practices requirement. after reading the above mentioned quote.. It sure sounds like people may have to get the "good housekeeping seal" from ASACP in order to obtain their domains of choice. If someone had a long standing relationship with ASACP it seems like their requests might be approved a little quicker? If someone had a paid membership perhaps they get approval faster.

QUOTE]

Jeesh I wander where they got the term "Best Practices Requirements"

could not have been from here could it ???? http://www.asacp.org/best_practices.php

I think ASACP has a lot more to do with this .xxx that you guys think. to think that that letter Joan posted is the only corespondance between ICM and ASACP is insulting to say the least.

Baddog's open letter and Connor's efforts to raise awareness over the .XXX issue to ASACP advisory council and members has prompted an email to all ASACP sponsors to get their input, which will most likely end up with an Advisory Council vote. No word on when a vote will be taken, just that input is now being solicited.



Fight the Divisions!

Do you know who is on the advisory Council??

that is a step in the right direction for sure.

this is sort of what i mean. for people who don't even know who the fsc is, or who have only heard of the doings through xbiz, why would one bother to go to a meeting?

what i don't see is the fsc reaching out to the webmaster community - except now, when the fsc needs funds. had more people known who you are, and more about what you do, more people would be members.

i see all sorts of other organizations reach out to potential members. it's not just good marketing - it's a way to be involved with the community.

http://www.asacp.org/aboutus.php

2005

* Aly Drummond, AVN
* Michelle Freridge, Free Speech Coalition
* Alec Helmy, XBiz.com
* Tom Hymes
* Chris Jester, SplitInfinity
* Holly Moss, HMoss Consulting
* Larry Paciotti, CCLR Internet
* Scott Rabinowitz, TrafficDude
* Morgan Sommer, Cybersocket
* Amanda Gross, Epoch Transaction Services

2004

* Aly Drummond, AlyTV
* Alec Helmy, XBiz.com
* Tom Hymes, AVN Online
* Gary Kremen, Sex.com
* Morgan Sommer, Cybersocket
* Jeff Southworth, Epoch Transaction Services
* Kat Sunlove, Free Speech Coalition





Fight the copy/paste!

correction, tom hymes is no longer on the Advisory Council, since Michele is already there.

Fight the not updated website!

The FSC should not have to explaine what they do.
THey been here since the video days and have defended this industry since day one. If you are not aware of them you really should do some homework.

Unless of course your a total noob that expects everything to be handed to them.
It's kinda your job to see and know what they do as an industry professional.

Wow, you mean to tell me that speaking up, and causing awareness actually has an effect still?

Nice to hear.

interesting...

Hopefully they were based off my concept of the ASaCP not actually being a part of this industry.

FSC are a membership-based organization funded by members' dues. Not only should they have to explain what they do, at least to their members (and the last memo went out in April if memory serves), but if the word "member" means what it usually does, members should collectively determine what they do.

When it was transparently obvious from the posts here at the end of May that very few people really did know much if anything about FSC, it was apparently okay to point that out. As you point out, they started out as representing the video part of this industry (this is a multi-faceted industry with many different priorities) and despite declarations from time to time about wanting to reach out to the online sector, you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence they have actually done so.

What "homework" would you have us do? Go to their site and there are no specifics about current issues, only brief reports of past activities. Ask here, as several of us did a few weeks ago about their actual aims and what precisely "membership" means, and there were no answers forthcoming.

In making these remarks, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with FSC, only that a huge amount of faith is being placed on them based almost entirely on assumptions. And assumptions aren't always wrong, but for heaven's sake isn't this an important enough issue that people should want something more concrete? Anyway what on earth is wrong with asking FSC to be more transparent?

Back in May I wrote something to the effect of how foolish webmasters would feel if it turns out FSC are putting a large part of their effort into pressing for certain video labelling requirements and very little into the record keeping requirements being pressed on the online community. That isn't a hugely fanciful possibility, given the makeup of their membership (at least prior to their recent intake), but again I'm not saying that this is the case, only that we don't know.

This business doesn't consist of a homogenous group of webmasters with common interests except in the broadest terms: TGP owners for example, have different priorities from paysite owners. Nor does it consist of the relatively small number of people who attend trade shows and the even smaller number who can get to FSC meetings. If any organization genuinely wants to reach the whole industry - which btw is also the only way it isn't going to end up being pilloried by whichever sectors it will inevitably neglect - it has to reach out.

Someone said earlier in this thread that ASACP just used the adult industry as a way to get into the bigger money and now they're moving away from adult. Maybe that person was right.

Very.....it will get very interesting soon...... :thumbsup

Fuck the bump. Do the Hustle! :thumbsup

Knock it off. I wasn't aware of them either, or I had forgotten about them and what they do. This kind of post you made is exactly the kind that pushes people away. They will see the attitude and think 'whatever, fuck you then' and never bother with it again. Unless that's the agenda, and you hate FSC.

Since the efforts to have ASACP Advisory council to review its neutral position has gone so well, might i suggest harnessing that same energy to address the following:


lenman's support for .xxx
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...5&page=1&pp=50

thread titled '.xxx the best way to stop censorship'

"Think about it. If adult content was on it's own TLD, it's easy to block it for kids. No major isp is going to block it, because they'd lose 20% of their customers. And people that want porn will have the power to see it.

I'd rather have that than have the US gov't try to prosecute people......"

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

the companies mentioned in Greg Dumas' post to ICANN:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-xxx/msg00056.html

".....I have personally met with many of the leaders in the online adult community from around the world ... from Python Communications in Curacao ... to Netcollex in the UK ... to Hustler, Vivid, AVN and many many more have all demonstrated their support for this application. ....."


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

larry walters letter to ICANN in support of .xxx:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-xxx/msg00003.html

"... For the good of the adult Internet industry, this proposal should be approved."


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




Fight the Iceberg!

Its going through already but will start voluntarily as they say.. If you think for a minute that a bill to make this mandatory won't be coming down soon after you are just fooling yourself! This is the easiest way to herd us and move us anywhere with the stroke of a pen!!

.xxx can :321GFY

All 3 of those comments and the people that made them shocked me when they were made and I still can't understand the logic.. .xxx is a bad idea no matter how you want to look for the silver lining... :(

I do not think that all of the people listed above support .xxx. Aren't some of their lawyers the ones fighting against it at FSC?

Can someone post a statement from all of these companies confirming this or is it just one person saying they said it?

Even if it was true, ASACP are the ones that went on the record and they are the ones who some people believe represent the industry, so they have more to answer for.

Lensman is one company, not an industry group like ASACP. He is wrong about .xxx as well, but he is one guy being wrong, not a trade group.

Even if it were true that large and visible companies that supported .XXX with letters of endorsements that were submitted in private with financial gains (kicksbacks,commissions, etc) , and that ASACP has been in the open of its NEUTRAL stance, it doesn't matter to you?!?!?!?!!?

So much for the paper tiger. You just got owned by your own hypocrisy.


Fight the Spinless!

Thats the attitude people have anyways.
Thats why this industry will never get there shit together.
Thats why this industry is always fragmented.


Anyone that steps up as an authority is quickly torn down, bigoted and hated on. Sorry its true. Look whats happening in this thread already. Nuff said.

Through my experience its always served me best to learn myself and pass my own judgements. Maybe others should do the same, but its not likely.

This is business, not a feed the baby with the silver spoon kind of stuff.

Especially in a board/public board where "My cock is HUGE today" threads overwelm important matters.

Ya want answers you goto find them, sorry thats just the way it is.
Get involved, make a difference and you would see what I mean.

Stop crucifying the messengers as history has shown time and time again...

Just like I laid out the facts you don't like it, thats fine.
But just take notice that me even sticking up for this important organization is merely sticking my neck out for fuckheads to take pop shots at.

I started this sorta discussion a number of days ago.
BadDag made a better thread (This one). Now that the subject is getting attention its a good sign but lets not forget the several threads about this subject before hand that no one gave a fuck about cuz it didnt have the title "I just shit my pants".

Get off the silverspoon and seek the important things out.

ASACP is not neutral - they wrote a letter supporting the group behind .xxx!

Post a letter from another industry trade group that supported .xxx.

You are posting rumors that some private companies might have supported .xxx and using that as an excuse for ASACP? What do a few private companies that you are posting rumors about have to do with a group who people see as representing the adult industry going on the record attacking free speech?

You attack everyone else, but you can't defend ASACP's actions.

Fight the spin posts! :)

the only "attacking" going on is people like yourself ignorantly believing that ASACP 'sold out the industry'.

it takes alot more than just ASACP to demonstrate industry acceptance of .XXX (and yes, i do understand that the 'neutral' stance, can show a positive stance to ICANN... but i knew that a year ago when i first read Joan's post).

All the quotes i posted are all on public record. I am not attacking any of the individuals, they said what they said, and they need to stand behind or defend, or change their POV from a year ago.


Fight the Finger Pointing!

Brandon your pushing it lol

FTP sorry man...

I think the ASACP did sell us out.

What else could it be?

Last I heard, Larry Walters was still supporting .xxx, but I don't know for sure. I thought that some of the others named were against it back when it came up at FSC, at least some of their lawyers.

There are going to be some private companies who will do anything for money, but people expect more from an industry group whose stated goal is to fight child porn.

As long as ASACP supports legal free speech while they're fighting child porn, they have my support. When they start helping the people that are against free speech, then even with the good they do, I wouldn't expect everyone to support them. :)

oh, so you were a member until just recently when the .XXX issue came up?

Because you know, people who support ASACP contribute by being members and sponsors.


Fight the Talk!

The Advisory Council's answer was to be a-political and not take a stance. Given the sensitive nature of this issue, ASACP sponsors and Advisory Council received an email from Joan recently to ask for their input, which i am sure will lead to a new Advisory Council vote.

So if the decision is made to publically state a non-supportive stance to .XXX, will that mean all those that never supported ASACP will do so now?

Will it mean that those that were supporters who were troubled at this issue, re-instate their support for ASACP?

or will there be permanent damage that causes ASACP to be crippled by this experience as sponsors pull out?



Fight the Crystal Ball!

You know what FTP, I'll be honest in saying you would be best served in dropping the "did you sponsor ASACP, if not shut up." attitude. That is the way you are coming off and it is doing far more harm than good.

That would only ring true if the actions of ASACP didn't have to potential to have an effect on EVERYONE in this industry, even those who do not choose to support ASACP.

Adult sites against Child pornography is now Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection

Please post a list here of non-adult related sponsors the ASACP has. The name change was done for mainstream acceptance right?? where are your mainstream sponsors that make donations so that ASACP can move forward?

I support my local police, but I wouldn't invite them into my home if I knew they were going to shit on my carpet.

I think ASACP's fight against CP is a very noble cause. But I will not continue to support them if they do not act in a responsible way towards my business.

As for the other people you have pointed out above as being in "favor" of a .xxx TLD. They are either misinformed, misguided, or have an agenda take your pick.

Could this now be happening?????
 

Does anyone know if this (i.e., an Advisory Board action) or something like this, might now be happening? Are Advisory board members at least actively looking into things? Does Joan have a "boss" other than the Advisory Board---if so, who is that person(s) or entity, and is Joan's boss biased or influenced by money-making if .xxx is mandated?????

Dave

There is an uncomfortable influence within ASACP and that's probably more of a problem than with most of the "advisory committee".

Who knows, but smells like Joan is just mouthing off some unofficial policy which has been discussed by that other influence :-)

Rest assured, where there is a dime, some asshole will go heading straight for it!

ASACP is an industry group? When did that happen?

good question

Scroll up, post 153

yup - that's me. a noob since 1996 *LOLOLOL*

i wasn't talking about me, but the many many webmasters i've talked to who have only the vaguest idea of what the fsc is - or have never heard of them. my own experience with them is i once saw the door to their office in chatsworth years ago *LOL*

if the fsc doesn't care to mingle with the webmasters till they need money, a lot of people aren't going to join and they aren't going to trust them. if there are a couple fsc people - or at least one - who basically do what sarah does for webinc, then even the newer webmasters will know who they are and what they do.

honestly, except for the 2257 thing and a couple other large things the fsc has done, most people i know - including some long time webmasters - have no idea what they do.

C-mon Basschick be real.

Any "Rep" that would come out on the boards would be butchered.
We've seen it all before.

I don't agree, but then let's come at this from another direction...

The 2257 regulations, together with the preamble, ran to 16 pages if memory serves. Anyway there are many points within it which can be attacked, firstly as a basis on which to have the whole of the new regulations overturned and secondly to have specific areas rejected or changed.

The first step is to seek an injunction, which is relatively simple to achieve since essentially the judge only has to be convinced that there can be a reasonable legal case made against the new rules. Which is not to say that the granting of an injunction is automatic, but nor is it much of an indication as to whether the plaintiffs will eventually be successful.

Up to this point, whether you make porn DVD's, run a sex shop, or a website, it's all good. But once the real struggle starts, that's when it becomes important that different sectors of the porn industry have different priorities. As a matter of good strategy it is unlikely that the FSC legal team will fight every single possible aspect of the regulations which is potentially open to challenge. More likely, they will pick specific issues and although the intention will be to shred the regulations and thus force a rethink of everything, the result may be that only these particular clauses are overthrown or changed. Perhaps the possibility of a settlement may arise, whereby the DOJ agrees to drop or change certain things: what will FSC insist upon and in what areas will their lawyers be prepared to compromise?

If you know the answers to those questions as you would if you were instructing the lawers directly, and as you should since (I assume from your comments) you have paid dues to the organization which is paying the lawyers, then simply tell us what they are. Contrary to what you have written, no-one here is being "torn down, bigoted and hated on". All anyone is saying is that we don't know the answers to these and similar questions.

But if as I suspect, you don't have those answers, you are making our point for us. And in that case, you might ask yourself why you are attacking us for asking the same questions you should be asking yourself...

They mention it all over their site. You can't miss it, oh wait.. I guess YOU can.

Add a few more spokesperson idiots to this thread and more webmasters will end up supporting .XXX just to oppose some of you.

Seems like the only people giving .xxx the thumbs up are those who stand to make money from it. Does .xxx get support from any big player who doesnt stand to make a mint from it? Anyone? I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you support this.

The media and ICANN are confused about the level of industry support for .xxx from everything I can see.

Since so many have thier suspicions but are scared to speculate, I will be the first since I don't care who I piss off. A little bird told me, actually a whole flock of little birds told me that there is INDEED a major player bankrolling ICM. The question one has to ask themself, is what major supporters of ASACP might also have a FINANCIAL stake in selling .xxx domains??? Don't ask me who this person is, do your own homework. Scan ASACP member pages and he is there. Yep sure is.

* Being closely aligned with the adult site industry, ASACP has a knowledge base to review submitted reports and forward only validated illegal sites (Red Flag Reports) to the authorities.


I don't see comments like that as a statement that they are an industry group.

To me, an industry group would be for us, like maybe a union would. Their current stance reminds me more of OSHA

Then you haven't been paying attention. The FSC has been at every Internext since I first started attending (then IA2000) in 1998. I remember Bill margold and others manning the booths and trying to raise awareness, and most webmasters pretending like the FSC wasn't there. And I previously listed a whole bunch of things the organization has done just recently and before 2257 for the good of the online industry. You keep saying nobody is on the boards or whatever, but I'm here and Redrob is here, plus Tom has posted. Michelle has been all over the place. How many people will it take? If you only get your news from one place, Xbiz, then maybe that's why you aren't aware of FSC activities in recent years. We've had Kat and Michelle and other FSC representatives on YNOT Radio on a number of occasions. AVN has actively covered FSC activities. All of 'Em distributes FSC stories and news. Heck, even the mainstream news. There are a number of places where you can get good news about the industry, and you can also keep in touch by caring about industry activism and asking around about what's going on. The FSC was at Internext, Cybernet Expo and Phoenix Forum, just to name a few events. What more do you want?

I'll add one thing though... it's a GOOD THING to ask the FSC what they are doing for the online businesses. When you meet Michelle or Tom or anyone from the Board, ASK THEM what the FSC is doing to help webmasters. First, it will help YOU understand why it's a good thing to support this organization. Second, it reminds the FSC that webmasters want to know that their support is being put to good use. As a member of the Board, you will help ME raise issues of importance to the online industry if you let the FSC know that you are paying attention. So what I'm saying is... it's a GOOD thing to ask questions. Just be fair in analyzing the organization when you get answers to your questions.

Meds run out again?

I do not support .xxx

I suggested that this thread should hit 10 pages, we are almost at the half way point.

Shut up bitch.