haha i can't watch it. he's so full of shit. watched clip one and i wanted to smash my laptop.
thats why i didn't go to the panel, i would have shot my mouth off 5 secs into it.
know what ya mean... i'm looking forward to watching the 2257 one with the FBI agent.. i flew in after that session and missed it. heard it was pretty interesting.
know what ya mean... i'm looking forward to watching the 2257 one with the FBI agent.. i flew in after that session and missed it. heard it was pretty interesting.
Fight the boobtube!
yeah that one is fine. watching it now.
that dude stuart is having visions of ferraris and hampton homes.
what a crock.
i guess i dhould watch it to see who took the ball and stood up to him so i can thank them at the next show.
I just got to the end of of clip 12. Tom Hymes said that the tape ran out during his question as the video ends abruptly, so there wasn't an editing choice, there was just not enough tape.
so seems like tom and baddog lost their 15 minutes
I just got to the end of of clip 12. Tom Hymes said that the tape ran out during his question as the video ends abruptly, so there wasn't an editing choice, there was just not enough tape.
so seems like tom and baddog lost their 15 minutes
Well just watched the series on 2257. Now if what that agent is saying is true nothing that they require are out of reason.
Just watched the second clip of Lawley and was interesting to hear a statement he made that they never said . xxx would help protect children. He stated in the video that it will provide revenue stream to child protection agency's. Does anyone know if you can get a annual report of non profit organizations?
What the hell is this thread doing on page 2? Folks this is a must watch set of videos clips here. This lays it out right from the horses mouth.
I would suggest if you enjoy what you do and wanna protect your business this
is a must see. There was alot of things that i was not aware of concerning the .xxx issue. At first like most i was like "hey xbiz why did you invite these guys".
But after watching these series of clips it was now and hearing it from the horses mouth we have a very huge issue on hand. Also thanks to xbiz for setting this up, thanks to the FSC lawyer that was on the panel, thanks to Brandon for moderating and thanks to the folks who attended the discussion for acting civil.
What the hell is this thread doing on page 2? Folks this is a must watch set of videos clips here. This lays it out right from the horses mouth.
I would suggest if you enjoy what you do and wanna protect your business this
is a must see. There was alot of things that i was not aware of concerning the .xxx issue. At first like most i was like "hey xbiz why did you invite these guys".
But after watching these series of clips it was now and hearing it from the horses mouth we have a very huge issue on hand. Also thanks to xbiz for setting this up, thanks to the FSC lawyer that was on the panel, thanks to Brandon for moderating and thanks to the folks who attended the discussion for acting civil.
I am on clip3 of the 2257 panel, and i highly recommend everyone view all of the clips
Here is what i got from clip3 already:
- you can have more than 1 photo ID. I remember hearing some industry attorneys saying that if you have extra info or other photo pics of the same ID, that it is a problem. the agent clearly says in clip3 its not a problem as long as you have your cross referencing and clear copy of the ID
- if you have a sign that says when you are closed for vacation, they will come back.. they aren't expecting you to be chained to the office.
clip3 starts with the Q&A
a common question with solo girls, is they don't want to put their address on their website for 2257 records. the agent said that an attorney can be the holder of records.... wow...
As you listen to the agent, you get a sense they are being practical about things, not trying to target anyone... I have had many meetings with FBI agents over child porn issues with ASACP, and they all are dedicated to protecting children and not about shutting down porn.. that anti-porn rhetoric is at the federal level, and granted that is where they get their marching orders, but so far in the inspection process and on this video, seems to me that if you keep good records, you have nothing to worry about.
the response about most webmasters present in the room were mostly from California was classic.
Fight the other 49 states and countries present!
I was very angry by the spin they applied to everything said, I'm still very angry by it. The common person isn't smart enough to realize when they're being lied to and they're playing that cord expertly.
I was very angry by the spin they applied to everything said, I'm still very angry by it. The common person isn't smart enough to realize when they're being lied to and they're playing that cord expertly.
Vint Cerf noted that he had been notified by email that there was a meeting of the adult online community that had recently taken place to discuss the creation of the new .XXX domain, and that the meeting was attended by ICM. John Jeffrey noted that he was informed that the meeting had taken place approximately one week earlier, and that Stuart Lawley of ICM had participated in a panel discussion. John also indicated that he was informed that it was sparsely attended and that there was no transcript of the panel discussion at this point. Vint Cerf asked whether by inference that meant there was no groundswell of support for the creation of the domain at that meeting. John Jeffrey reflected that he did not believe that there was enough information about the conference to support that conclusion. Vint Cerf advised that a transcript of the meeting had been offered to him, but it was not yet available.
Vint Cerf noted that he had been notified by email that there was a meeting of the adult online community that had recently taken place to discuss the creation of the new .XXX domain, and that the meeting was attended by ICM. John Jeffrey noted that he was informed that the meeting had taken place approximately one week earlier, and that Stuart Lawley of ICM had participated in a panel discussion. John also indicated that he was informed that it was sparsely attended and that there was no transcript of the panel discussion at this point. Vint Cerf asked whether by inference that meant there was no groundswell of support for the creation of the domain at that meeting. John Jeffrey reflected that he did not believe that there was enough information about the conference to support that conclusion. Vint Cerf advised that a transcript of the meeting had been offered to him, but it was not yet available.
----------------------
The video clips have been sent to ICANN
Fight the spinning!
Wow, these guys really are masters of spin, either that or they truly are delusional. I'm not sure it isn't a combination of the two to be honest.
I was very angry by the spin they applied to everything said, I'm still very angry by it. The common person isn't smart enough to realize when they're being lied to and they're playing that cord expertly.
the guys a delusional spin doctor. he can jump off a cliff. his motives are clearly apparent to those that have been following and fighting this since the beginning. there is only one course of action if his goals are to protect children and make the net safer.
You are the only person complaining about the stream . . . tells me it is your issue, not theirs. Personally, I was pretty impressed with the speed of the server they are on.
there is no support or money in it according to him
exactly. no money in it so he can't make money with it even though its the best thing for everyone. the government would never let him charge 75 bucks a domain name for .kids.
there is less support in .xxx, but oh wait, the money is here, hence the strongarm views and spin and telling icann things he thinks they want to hear to get his BS through to the next level.
i retain my opinion that icann is not stupid and they know damn well we don't want this.
exactly. no money in it so he can't make money with it even though its the best thing for everyone. the government would never let him charge 75 bucks a domain name for .kids.
i have been proposing that since it takes an oversight as to who would get a .KIDS domain (they have to be verified that they were kid friendly, etc), that it could cost as much as $120/yr for a domain.
Any company that wishes to target children for good reasons shouldn't have a problem paying the fee and given less amount of domains, it does bring in some $$$ to offset costs.
Someone like Network Solutions that has the infrastructure in place makes sense, rather than trying to create a whole new set of root servers,etc.
Comment