Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
exactly. which is why .XXX TLD is such a unique TLD... that IFFOR was needed to be created to provide some kind of ovesight because ICANN didn't want to do it, but what has evolved is that .XXX is a content-based TLD that has guidelines and rules that go beyond other TLDs.
This is the rough waters that ICANN is sitting in, is certainly the focus by outside forces like Canada, who are saying that ICANN is overstepping its mission.
There is a whole other battle being waged at ICANN's level about what they are doing.
|
Sure Brandon - this scenario does not fall within the ICANN brief and is, as you prob know, a sore point with other nations as well as Canada and ruffling ICANN a little.
So... Since IFFOR are the "sponsoring organization" supporting ICM in their application to ICANN.. there may be a grain of relevance in establishing who IFFOR actually are and the motivation for establishing this organisation (sure we know, but that's another story) and what activitities it has undertaken towards "international online responsibility" since it's inception.
Related questions are along the lines of...
What activities has IFFOR been involved in or organized as part of it's role towards "international online responsibility"?
Is IFFOR a registered charity? If so, what is the Register Charity Number and the the legal entity name it operates under?
Who are the officers?
When did IFFOR start operating?
Who funds the costs of IFFOR overhead?
Who is the registrant of iffor.org? (sure we know, but illustrates something)
Why does ICM make claims that "IFFOR is and will remain independent from ICM Registry" when Stuart Lawley/A Technology Company, Inc. owns the domain name, iffor.org and the same ownership exists for icmregistry.com?
Bottom line... the application to ICANN is based on another one of Jason Hendeles 'stategic plans' to fake up substance for the application using a purported 'charity' which has no track record, claims to be independent and is owned/controlled by the applicants.
Hendeles is not unknown for his exaggerations - there are several claims of his abilities in the application to ICANN which are clearly false. This is very close to the business ethics of iBill and similar to other Hendeles 'corporate designs" such as NMN (National Moving Network) which were fraudulent.
Simplified, we are talking about corporate scam artists here - not businessmen with a social conscious.
PS Instead of asking questions, the session needs to be in the form of a deposition taken by lawyers in preparation for future legal action
