Quote:
Originally Posted by FlexxAeon
saying "protecting the children" is just my shorthand, as most people here including myself are aware of what IFFOR's intended purpose is.
again, and unfortunately, your reply doesn't clarify much, just seem to be dodging and moving tangentially away from explaining how this:
Quote:
|
unless the Board determines that the Supplemental Recommendation is not consistent with the Charter and this corporation?s mission
|
doesn't mean that ICM has the final say so or "veto" on a recommendation. so i stand by my original post. iit still seems that IFFOR isn't as "separate" of an entity as it intends to be, and i still interpret the bylaws to mean that ICM has the power to ignore anything that they see fit. and since lawley is still at the helm of ICM, him stepping down from IFFOR means little.
BUT.... I admit that the cozy relationship of these two entities makes little difference in the long run. I don't have any .xxx domains and have no intentions on buying. Even if I did it still would be of little consequence. I just see the HUGE conflict of interest this would cause if we were to all be forced onto .xxx domains. If that day comes I'll be beating the drum again. |
Actually, in the paragraph that you are quoting, "the board" is actually the IFFOR board. IFFOR has a board and a policy council. So Stuart stepping down from the IFFOR board, really does draw a clear line of separation between ICM and IFFOR.
And as I stated in another thread, ICM has no intention of lobbying to make .XXX mandatory.
Thank you though, for the opportunity to have a conversation that didn't require popcorn.
