Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
1) i am not going to ask questions that i know won't get a response and not be relevant. if an audience member wants to ask those kinds of questions, then THEY can (and most likely will not get an answer). The "real" questions are ones that clarify the ambiguity of what .XXX is claiming, not the gossip ragging that is fuel for folly and achieves no purpose.
|
Which is the basic flaw in panels such as this: uncomfortable questions are ignored while whoever is the subject gets to present prepared answers which say no more than a typical press release.
XXX is setting up this industry to be raped. Giving the would-be rapist a public forum is affording a veneer of respectability that ICM does not deserve.
Here is a company cynically applying to be registrar in the guise of attempting to protect minors, when its principals have to know - at least as well as anyone here - that this TLD will not do that at all. This is a company which doesn't care if it facilitates the eventual ghettoization of this industry, so long as it makes a profit. This is a company with such a poor reputation, that it is widely suspected of having made secret deals to gain much of whatever support it has within the industry.
So asking if ICM made sweetheart deals and if so, with whom, is not irrelevant. Indeed if ICM will not answer that question, it should not be given a forum in which to answer others, not least because if ICM has little credibility, what sense does it make to place any credence in the answers to hypotheticals about minutiae?
This is a company which may be given a monopoly such that one day it could in effect be deciding who can operate in online porn and on what terms. If its application to be the registrar for the XXX TLD isn't totally transparent and honest, details they can interpret and renegotiate as they go along, are the real irrelevancy.