So is this proof that .xxx ICM and IFFOR have already violated their ICANN agreement?

[Bladewire]

You see on page 2 of the ICM/IFFOR contract submitted to ICANN for the approval of the .xxx TLD it states:

"4. Respect ethical screens designed by IFFOR to ensure its independence from ICM and to
protect it from inappropriate influence by ICM. "





Also how can IFFOR.ORG not be inappropriately influenced by ICM when Stuart Lawley , Chairman and CEO of ICM registry, is listed as the registrant of the IFFOR.ORG domain name? Is this all proof that ICANN and GAC were misled my documents submitted to them for the approval of .xxx ? I'm not sure how to interpret this.

[Bladewire]

And here's the historical whois for IFFOR.com

[Barefootsies]

The plot thickens...

[Zyber]

Nice find.

The smoking gun.

[woj]

interesting find, on an unrelated note, which tool is that top screenshot showing?

[GonZo]

interesting find, on an unrelated note, which tool is that top screenshot showing?

Im guessing . . . they were being discrete.

[Bladewire]

interesting find, on an unrelated note, which tool is that top screenshot showing?

Ah my bad I meant to link the image to the source. The tool is Robtex and the screencap was taken from this source

[JFK]

The plot thickens...

indeed it does

[Rochard]

Basically IFFOR is just a way for them to give Joan and ASCAP and god only knows who else their kickbacks for their support.

[BlackCrayon]

To recap, according to IFFOR's Bylaws:

Initially, IFFOR will have one Board member, ICM's Chairman and CEO, Stuart Lawley
The remaining Board members will be selected by the initial Board of Directors, Stuart Lawley
The ICM position on the board is the only position guaranteed on the board without term limits that cannot be removed under any circumstances by the Board.
IFFOR's Board Chair and ICM's Board Chair are one in the same, Stuart Lawley who will preside over all IFFOR Board meetings

http://www.xbiz.com/blogs/blog.php?b=fsc&offset=10

[Bladewire]

http://www.xbiz.com/blogs/blog.php?b=fsc&offset=10

On the first page of their agreement with ICANN it specifically states on page one:

"(b) Statements made During Application Process. The factual statements
contained in Registry Operator?s application for the TLD, or made by Registry
Operator in negotiating this Agreement, were true and correct in all material
respects at the time the application was submitted to ICANN and are true and
correct in all material respects as of the date of this Agreement as set forth
above"

I don't think it was presented to ICANN that Mr. Lawley will have that kind of control over both "separate" entities

As a matter of fact on page 17 of this document he sent to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution he says:

"IFFOR was to be independent of ICM, and the two entities would share only one board member (myself, at least initially)."

He doesn't at all represent to them that:

"The ICM position on the board is the only position guaranteed on the board without term limits that cannot be removed under any circumstances by the Board. "

If that is true it would seem that his statement to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in regards to his actual irrevocable limitless term role at IFFOR were incorrect.

[DWB]

Damn. Nice find.

[spazlabz]

incredible find... will it make a difference?

[DangerX !!!]

__________________

[Barry-xlovecam]

Show us the records!

11:46 PM barry@mck-deathstar-7:~$ whois sex.xxx
No whois server is known for this kind of object.

; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P1 <<>> sex.xxx
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 18311
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;sex.xxx. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
sex.xxx. 1800 IN A 99.192.180.225

;; Query time: 167 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Thu Apr 21 00:43:14 2011
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 41

12:46 AM barry@mck-deathstar-7:~$ whois 99.192.180.225
#
# Query terms are ambiguous. The query is assumed to be:
# "n 99.192.180.225"
#
# Use "?" to get help.
#

#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=99...showARIN=false
#

Mojohost VL370 GREGD NET-99-192-180-192-26 (NET-99-192-180-192-1) 99.192.180.192 - 99.192.180.255
MOJOHOST EOS-17 (NET-99-192-128-0-1) 99.192.128.0 - 99.192.255.255

5.) SPONSORED TLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT, ARTICLE III COVENANTS, Section 3.1 says that;

"Section 3.1 Covenants of Registry Operator. Registry Operator covenants and agrees with ICANN as follows:"

(b) Consensus Policies, (iv) says that;

(B) Prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain
names by registries or registrars;

(C) Reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not
be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons
reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or
misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical
management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of
reservations of names from registration);

(D) Maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date
information concerning domain name registrations;

[Black All Through]

The plot thickens...

Yes, indeed it does.

[u-Bob]

fuck the icm and their crappy tld.

[DWB]

Biggest scam the industry has ever seen.

But it's too late now. It's a done deal.