Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
At least SOMEONE is paying attention, whoever you are. Thanks for the additional links.
|
I do find some encouragement in the fact that Lawley has gone from calling the idea of referring the question back to GAC "unnecessary" (prior to today's meeting) to saying that referring it back to the GAC is what he "hoped for" (after the meeting).
If doublespeak were an Olympic event, Lawley would have more gold medals to hang around his neck than does Michael Phelps.
If .XXX is eventually approved, I will be very, very interested to see how ICM/IFFOR go about making good on statements like:
Quote:
|
For consumers who wish to browse adult entertainment sites, [.XXX] will provide reassurance that they are protected from risk around identity theft, credit card fraud and child abuse images.
|
So.... no UGC content sites allowed, I presume? I further assume that in order to provide this "reassurance" about such things, IFFOR will be proactively auditing the 2257 records of .XXX domain-holders? And they must be planning to do some measure of credit card transaction risk management that is greater than that currently offered by Paycom, CCBill and other IPSPs?
Awesome!
Those things mentioned above must be part of the plan, right? Otherwise, how could they provide any greater assurance that surfers will be "protected" than the current environment offers?
The real answer is, of course,
they can't reasonably offer the assurances that they have promised..... Period.