ICM Registry has named its founding board of directors and policy council members

[Quentin]

... for IFFOR, I meant.

Some interesting choices in the mix here, including a former president of the ACLU.

[MaDalton]

nice, no one of them has a clue about the adult internet business (no, not even Joan Irvine obviously)

and this is nice:

Sebastien Bachollet, CEO of BBS Consulting and a member of
the Board of Directors of ICANN.

do i smell something fishy here?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Quentin

.....including a former president of the ACLU.....

Utterly perfect. Someone who doesn't begin to understand how the adult internet works.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Utterly perfect. Someone who doesn't begin to understand how the adult internet works.

Did you bother to read the link?

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Utterly perfect. Someone who doesn't begin to understand how the adult internet works.

Well, in the ACLU's defense, the ACLU did handle the legal challenges to COPA and COPA II shot down, and in the process, they consulted with at least a few members of the adult industry. In fact, I know of one prominent opponent of .XXX who served as an expert witness in Mukasey v. ACLU (AKA "the COPA II case").

This doesn't mean that Nadine Strossen knows the first thing about the adult internet personally, of course. What I think we can assume is that she knows a thing or two about the First Amendment, like the fact that current First Amendment case law -- including several important precedents set in cases handled by the organization she used to be president of -- most likely precludes the possibility of .XXX being made mandatory (for U.S.-based site operators, at least).

With five seats still to be filled with reps from the adult industry, it remains to be seen how much actual industry expertise winds up being on the IFFOR policy board.

[TheDA]

Sharon Girling, WOW!!!

[Cherry7]

Selected NOT elected.

No democracy here, not even for people paying up for XXX domains...

Nice piece of change to be shared out for a few meeting a year.

And those naughty people who refuse to be corralled into XXX, what will the high and mighty being advising their governments to do about them ?

Does anyone represent 14- 18 year old Young people? What do they want? As most people agree masturbation is normal and healthy for young people, should they not have access to erotic materials ?

[Herd]

Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry and Chairman of IFFOR commented, ?IFFOR has the potential to become one of the internet industry?s greatest forces for good".

Greatest forces of good? Is he serious? Why would a pornographic company ever make a statement like that?

[Gabriel]

For those who dont want to update their Adobe.

IFFOR secures high profile board and policy
council members to oversee the responsible
development of the .XXX sTLD

WASHINGTON, DC: June 22, 2011 -The International Foundation
for Online Responsibility (IFFOR), the non-profit organization
tasked with policy making for the new .XXX Top Level Domain
(TLD), has today announced the founding members of its board of
directors and policy council. The high-profile and highly respected
members include leading global figures in internet security, online
child protection and freedom of expression, including Professor
Nadine Strossen and Sharon Girling OBE.

IFFOR is an independent non-profit body, which has been created
by ICM Registry, the organization responsible for the new .XXX
TLD, which opens to trademark owners under a sunrise launch
period in September 2011. IFFOR will receive significant funding
from ICM at a rate of $10 per domain registration per year.

The policy council will be responsible for initiating a series of
policies for responsible business practices and conduct within the
.XXX online adult-entertainment community. This includes making
adult content less accessible to children online and protecting the
privacy and security of consenting adult consumers of online
adult-entertainment goods and services.

Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry and Chairman of IFFOR

commented, ?IFFOR has the potential to become one of the
internet industry?s greatest forces for good. The caliber of our


founding members, international leaders in their fields from child
protection, to privacy, to freedom of expression is testament to
the organizations vision and ambition. We are extremely honored
by their commitment to IFFOR?s mission and we all look forward
to collaborating with our industry and other partners as IFFOR

begins its important work.?

Professor Nadine Strossen, the Free Expression Policy Council
member for IFFOR, added: ?Wearing both of my hats, as a scholar
and activist, I have long championed the freedom of consenting
adults to make their own choices about what sexual expression to
access online as well as the rights of parents and guardians to
make such choices regarding their own children. It is an honor ?
and an important responsibility ? to serve as the inaugural
member of IFFOR?s Policy Council who is designated as the
advocate of these fundamental freedoms.?

IFFOR Board Members

The Chair of the IFFOR Board will be Stuart Lawley, the current
chairman and CEO of ICM Registry. Joining Lawley as board
directors will be Clyde Beattie, CEO of Yorkland Investment Corp
and Sebastien Bachollet, CEO of BBS Consulting and a member of
the Board of Directors of ICANN.

Beattie?s experience includes serving as Chairman of the Canadian
Internet registry Authority (CIRA), where he was responsible for
the .CA top level domain, as well as serving as a director of the
Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP).

Bachollet?s expertise also stems from a technological background,
having launched the www.sncf.fr website and built CIGREF (Club
Informatique des Grandes Entreprises Françaises).


The board is assisted by Joan Irvine as Executive Director, the
recent CEO of the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection
(ASACP).

IFFOR Policy Council Members

The IFFOR Board is also supported by its Policy Council and the
initial Non-Adult Industry Members are;

Child protection authority Sharon Girling OBE, has over 30 years?
experience in policing, specializing in the last ten years in
addressing international Internet enabled pedophilia, advising
both the British Prime Minister and the President of the United
States.

Fred Cate is a distinguished Professor of Law at the Indiana
University School of Law-Bloomington and director of the Indiana
University Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research. He
specializes in privacy, security, and other information law issues,
and appears regularly before Congress, government agencies, and
professional and industry groups on these matters.

Bob Corn-Revere, Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, has extensive
experience in First Amendment law and communications, media
and information technology law. Bob speaks and writes
extensively on First Amendment and communications policy
issues.

The fourth member of the IFFOR Policy Council is Nadine Strossen.
Strossen has written, lectured, and practiced extensively in the
areas of constitutional law, civil liberties, and international human
rights. From 1991 through 2008 she served as president of the


American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the
nation?s largest and oldest civil liberties organization.

The remaining five policy council members selected to represent
the online adult entertainment industry on an international basis
will be announced in July/August.

-ENDS-

For further information, please contact:
Giles Barron, Diffusion, [email protected], +4420 7025 1504


About IFFOR (http://www.iffor.org)

IFFOR is a non-profit entity that will serve as the policy-making
body for the .XXX extension. It is independent from ICM Registry
and has its own board of directors and Policy Council representing
all stakeholders, including child safety representatives, members
of the free speech community and adult entertainment industry
leaders. IFFOR will engage in various programs and activities,
including but not limited to: (1) Promoting public awareness of
technologies, programs, organizations and methods available to
protect children online; (2) Enhancing development and
proliferation of systems for labeling and identifying material
online; (3) supporting free expression to allow Internet users the
right to choose the online material they desire; and (4)
Contributing to various organizations that support Internet safety.

[Lilit]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

and this is nice:

Sebastien Bachollet, CEO of BBS Consulting and a member of
the Board of Directors of ICANN.

do i smell something fishy here?

Haha that's exactly what caught my attention in that article

I don't think anyone had doubts about their lobby.

But...one story is when you pay big $$$ for lobby, another story is when a representative of a controlling organization joins as a board member... Makes me think they have really BIG plans (well, I guess this is another thing which no one had doubts about)

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Herd

Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry and Chairman of IFFOR commented, ?IFFOR has the potential to become one of the internet industry?s greatest forces for good".

Greatest forces of good? Is he serious? Why would a pornographic company ever make a statement like that?

We should stamp a giant S on his chest

[FightThisPatent]

I had the fortunate opportunity to be invited to a dinner meeting years ago when Nadine Strossen first took over the ACLU position, she is a very sharp individual, very much like Diane Duke of FSC.

I asked her the question of how could the ACLU defend a morally corrupt person like David Duke of KKK, etc. Her answer was that the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of individuals, even if their words/actions are against personal beliefs. It is this non-judgmental line they follow that is their guide, and the response that did open my eyes better to understand why/what the ACLU does.

I think she will be fair and balanced in the position, but not Fox News like (LOL).

but while the ICM group is busy pushing calculator buttons and doing what-if scenarios in excel of the sales of .XXX domains, i see the dilution of the TLD space by ICANN that can open up .porn, .gay, .lesbian, etc will lessen their lofty aspirations.

Fight the .$$$!

[Alprazolam]

are they sponsoring the lebrun gathering. that is all that really matters.

[Chris]

"initial Non-Adult Industry Members are;"

why dont one of you guys step up and take the iffor spot? give the adult industry a voice - becuase you are on the iffor board does not mean you are supporting .xxx you are on the board to give your view on how .xxx should be ran as it is here and we did not defeat it
we might aswell be on the board to control it

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Herd

Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry and Chairman of IFFOR commented, ?IFFOR has the potential to become one of the internet industry?s greatest forces for good".

Greatest forces of good?

You just know they're up to no good if they start making statements like that.

Luckily for us, the .xxx tld is already becoming irrelevant before it's operational.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Chris

"initial Non-Adult Industry Members are;"

why dont one of you guys step up and take the iffor spot? give the adult industry a voice - becuase you are on the iffor board does not mean you are supporting .xxx you are on the board to give your view on how .xxx should be ran as it is here and we did not defeat it
we might aswell be on the board to control it

any industry people on the board would
- be powerless to actually have any impact on things
- be used as a sign of industry support by Lawley.

[Robbie]

My question is...while those people are all busy appointing themselves to "Boards" and convincing themselves of their importance to an industry that none of them are really part of (none of them have ever even shot a porn scene...they are all fringe parasites)...
Doesn't the decision the other day to open the floodgates to pretty much ALL TLD's kind of make all them the "Board Of Directors" of jack shit?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Doesn't the decision the other day to open the floodgates to pretty much ALL TLD's kind of make all them the "Board Of Directors" of jack shit?

Correct .

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My question is...while those people are all busy appointing themselves to "Boards" and convincing themselves of their importance to an industry that none of them are really part of (none of them have ever even shot a porn scene...they are all fringe parasites)...
Doesn't the decision the other day to open the floodgates to pretty much ALL TLD's kind of make all them the "Board Of Directors" of jack shit?

Here's the thing; my understanding is that under the agreement ICM has with ICANN, they have the right to preemptively challenge the establishment of other TLDs that compete with .XXX

I'm seeking clarification on whether that right to challenge includes only sTLDs or if gTLDs are also subject to that clause. I'm also not entirely clear on whether ICANN has to abide by ICM's objections, or merely "consider" them.

Once I know the answers to those questions (assuming what I've heard about the agreement between ICM and ICANN is accurate in the first place) I'll post them here.

[Redrob]

I would love to hear what you find out, Quentin.

[Anthony]

And so the Lobbying of getting our sites all compacted into one neat cyberspace spot of .xxx begins.

Fuck all of you.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Here's the thing; my understanding is that under the agreement ICM has with ICANN, they have the right to preemptively challenge the establishment of other TLDs that compete with .XXX

That's interesting.

But even though I'm not an attorney, that sounds right off the bat like it wouldn't fly.

For instance, if I decide to start up .sex because I'm a sex researcher and it's intention is for companies that do sexual research, condom companies, birth control companies etc....then .xxx can't do a damn thing about it.

And if thousands of porn sites decide to buy a .sex extension? Again, nothing anybody can do about it. lol

.XXX are fucked in my opinion. Bunch of leaches and parasites that have never really BEEN in this business.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Chris

"initial Non-Adult Industry Members are;"

why dont one of you guys step up and take the iffor spot? give the adult industry a voice - becuase you are on the iffor board does not mean you are supporting .xxx you are on the board to give your view on how .xxx should be ran as it is here and we did not defeat it
we might aswell be on the board to control it

I suggested that weeks ago. People do not pay attention.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

any industry people on the board would
- be powerless to actually have any impact on things
- be used as a sign of industry support by Lawley.

Why do you know the future with such clarity?

Originally Posted by Robbie

My question is...while those people are all busy appointing themselves to "Boards" and convincing themselves of their importance to an industry that none of them are really part of (none of them have ever even shot a porn scene...they are all fringe parasites)...
Doesn't the decision the other day to open the floodgates to pretty much ALL TLD's kind of make all them the "Board Of Directors" of jack shit?

How many people do you think can afford the process? The 185 is an application fee

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by baddog

How many people do you think can afford the process? The 185 is an application fee

Plenty of people, including me CAN afford it. I think the better question would be how many people see any value in a startup of one and WOULD do it.

And I theorize that "yeah" lots of folks will take a shot at it. I know I wouldn't....I don't know enough about it. But I could definitely see groups of investors going after some main ones that they think might be a profitable enterprise.

Personally I think that .com is always going to be THE one to have. And my personal hope is that .xxx falls on it's ass and the people involved all take a big loss. They deserve it for what they are trying to pull.

And now that TLD's are up for grabs...I sincerely hope that .kids or .safe or .family all become successful and give parents a way to "protect" their kids from seeing naked girls. Then and ONLY then will children be "protected" from sex and able to play violent video games without the DANGER of porn.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Plenty of people, including me CAN afford it.

I think you are dreaming, but if you are truly wealthy, you should jump on it.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by baddog

I think you are dreaming, but if you are truly wealthy, you should jump on it.

Wealthy? No. Do I make enough money to jump in with a group of investors and do it? Yes. As do a lot of people in a lot of industries. And yeah, I could swing $185,000 no problem. I paid $725,000 for my house.

[baddog]

Like I said, you should do it.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by baddog

Like I said, you should do it.

I could also go out and invest in a lot of stuff that I don't have any expertise in. No thanks. I'm not versed at all in that whole thing. Which to me means I would surely lose.

But I do believe that there are plenty of people who could get in this, have the capital, and have the knowledge.

If I were to scrounge up the $185,000 right now it would definitely slow me down and hurt. 3 years ago I could have spent that 185 without blinking an eye. I'm way more worried now with my finances with all my affiliate money gone to shit.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by baddog

Why do you know the future with such clarity?

experience. If you look at the ICM's track record, it's history of broken promises, the way they used the defensive preregs as a sign of support etc.... it would be naive to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's interesting.

But even though I'm not an attorney, that sounds right off the bat like it wouldn't fly.

For instance, if I decide to start up .sex because I'm a sex researcher and it's intention is for companies that do sexual research, condom companies, birth control companies etc....then .xxx can't do a damn thing about it.

And if thousands of porn sites decide to buy a .sex extension? Again, nothing anybody can do about it. lol

.XXX are fucked in my opinion. Bunch of leaches and parasites that have never really BEEN in this business.

True enough, most likely.... but you've just described something that wouldn't compete with .XXX, because it wouldn't be for porn, so I'm not sure why ICM would object to it in the first place.

As to whether anything could be done about it if porn site operators registered domains on such a TLD, if a .SEX TLD came into existence and avoided the issue of a challenge from ICM by stating an intent to serve sex researchers, condom companies and the like, I'm fairly certain that ICANN would require the agreement with the TLD registry/operator to include set of bylaws that registrants of .SEX domains would have to adhere to, and that running porn sites on that TLD would violate those bylaws.

So, if someone registered a .SEX domain and put a porn site there, they could have their domain summarily yanked by the TLD operator. Under the Registrant Agreement that Tralliance Registry (the registry that operates .Travel) has with ICANN, for example, Tralliance can revoke the license of any .Travel site operator unilaterally, if the site operator does any number of things that are covered under the "Revocation" section of Tralliance's agreement with ICANN.

Suppose the registry that owned .SEX refused to enforce its own terms and just looked the other way when site operators set up porn sites there? Well, then the registry would very likely be in violation of its agreement with ICANN... which is probably not that great an idea. ;-)

It's quite possible that somebody could sue ICANN over blocking the establishment of TLDs that compete with .XXX, and I really have no clue how such a case would play out. I wouldn't be too surprised if ICANN were given a fair amount of discretion by the Court with respect to enforcing its own rules and contracts, though.

Suing ICANN over blocking competing TLDs also would introduce even more expense to the act of establishing the .SEX/.PORN/.WHATEVER TLD, and it would take quite a while to play out in court; probably at least a couple years, and at least several hundred thousand bucks.

If it's already questionable whether any TLD other than .COM is worthwhile to use for porn site operators, what would be the impetus to spend the money to sue for the right to establish a new porn-related TLD? Keep in mind that if you win that lawsuit against ICANN, you would still have to pay the $185k application fee, then pay the other fees that follow the initial application fee if you get approved, acquire the requisite technical infrastructure if you don't already have such in hand (which is itself a potentially substantial cost), etc. etc.

To me, if it is questionable whether anything other than .COM is worth the price of establishment, and the future of .XXX is dicey accordingly, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go through everything outlined above just to establish a TLD that competes with .XXX.

I personally don't think .XXX is going to take off and become the 'next big thing,' but I think it's even less likely that another porn-specific TLD, which could not be established any time soon (even if ICM doesn't or can't object, the process of getting a new gTLD of any kind up and running is going to take a fair amount of time from where we stand today) would turn out to be a profitable enterprise.

Of course, all of this is only really relevant if what I've heard about ICM's agreement with ICANN is true, and I'm still trying to confirm/refute that.

Sorry for the long-winded post, btw; brevity has never been my strong suit. ;-)

[iamtam]

conflict of interest is such a nasty thing. i smell a lawsuit based on this board.

[seeandsee]

come on i wanted 10k$ they are giving it, fuckers

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Quentin

True enough, most likely.... but you've just described something that wouldn't compete with .XXX, because it wouldn't be for porn, so I'm not sure why ICM would object to it in the first place.

As to whether anything could be done about it if porn site operators registered domains on such a TLD, if a .SEX TLD came into existence and avoided the issue of a challenge from ICM by stating an intent to serve sex researchers, condom companies and the like, I'm fairly certain that ICANN would require the agreement with the TLD registry/operator to include set of bylaws that registrants of .SEX domains would have to adhere to, and that running porn sites on that TLD would violate those bylaws. )

Makes sense.
But it also makes my point...I think. lol
First off, ICM is going to play hell "objecting" to anything that makes money for the God's of TLD's.
Second...Every extension has a "purpose" and yet every extension has porn sites on them. It would appear to me that trying to stop people from registering domain names with any extension they want would be self-defeating to the powers that be.

If the scenario you posted were true I couldn't have a .net (network providers) and damn sure couldn't own the .org (non profit)

I guess none of us know, but my gut feeling is that "no" they aren't going to be able to "stop" anybody from opening up .porn and .sex and .xx or any other tld.

When they made their "deal" and paid out there ass and THOUGHT they were going to ass fuck our industry for their own pocketbook...everything was set up completely different. There were only a handful of TLD's (excluding country extensions) and new ones were RARELY allowed.

And then last week...that completely changed. LOL!

Now any group can put together some capital and put forth a proposal for a new extension.
I don't think that .XXX is going to have any power at all to tell anyone what they can and can't do, though they surely do want that power.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Makes sense.
But it also makes my point...I think. lol
First off, ICM is going to play hell "objecting" to anything that makes money for the God's of TLD's.
Second...Every extension has a "purpose" and yet every extension has porn sites on them. It would appear to me that trying to stop people from registering domain names with any extension they want would be self-defeating to the powers that be.

If the scenario you posted were true I couldn't have a .net (network providers) and damn sure couldn't own the .org (non profit)

I guess none of us know, but my gut feeling is that "no" they aren't going to be able to "stop" anybody from opening up .porn and .sex and .xx or any other tld.

When they made their "deal" and paid out there ass and THOUGHT they were going to ass fuck our industry for their own pocketbook...everything was set up completely different. There were only a handful of TLD's (excluding country extensions) and new ones were RARELY allowed.

And then last week...that completely changed. LOL!

Now any group can put together some capital and put forth a proposal for a new extension.
I don't think that .XXX is going to have any power at all to tell anyone what they can and can't do, though they surely do want that power.

Well.... yes and no. ;-)

True, the stated purpose of the .net and .org TLDs when they were first established was to serve networks and non-profits, but if there was contract language that made those intended uses required for registrants of .net/.org domains, those terms of use have never been enforced.

At this point, if those terms ever did exist, they don't exist in the current language of the agreement between ICANN and VeriSign (which runs .net) or the agreement between Public Interest Registry (which runs .org)

When .net and .org were created, the Web was a very, very different place. Among other things, they were created prior to the existence of ICANN; .net and .org were both established in 1985, ICANN was established in 1998. By the time ICANN was founded, the originally envisioned (and never enforced) purposes of .net and .org were a distant memory.

The open/unrestricted use of .org was acknowledged long before PIR took it over (March 2010), and PIR has made it very clear that they intend to keep its use open. VeriSign has been clear about the open nature of .net, as well.

Going forward, the TLD playing field is very different than it was in 1985-1998, particularly from a legal standpoint, and ICANN's presence in the mix is the key.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I would love to hear what you find out, Quentin.

Minutes ago (literally) I was provided with quite a bit of information on the questions of whether new porn-related TLDs can be challenged, how such a challenge would work, and who could bring it.

The short answers are yes, in a variety of ways, and not just by ICM.

As it turns out (surprise!) the complete answers with respect to the related questions of "how?" and "by whom?" are rather complicated.

I'm going to take some time to read through everything that I've just received, and then I'll post more info, including links to all the relevant source documents that the answers come from.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I would love to hear what you find out, Quentin.

Here's what I've found out; apologies in advance for what is bound to be a pretty lengthy post... this stuff is a little on the complicated side.

The ICM agreement with ICANN contains a provision that calls for "TLD Differentiation," which states the following:

TLD Differentiation

ICANN and Registry Operator acknowledge that one of the criteria included in the application process in which the sTLD was selected, and in the previous TLD application expansion round, was that a new TLD be "clearly differentiated from existing TLDs." ICANN, when undertaking to effect the delegation of new TLDs, shall take into consideration Internet community input received, including any objections interested third parties may have under policy considerations or applicable law or otherwise, regarding the creation of new TLD strings.

Within ICANN's recently published gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Module 3 covers objection procedures for proposed new TLD strings, including objections that might be raised by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as well as public/third party objections.

Let's start with potential third party objectors and then come back to the GAC.

Under section 3.2 "Public Objection and Dispute Resolution Process," the Guidebook states:

A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding. In filing an application for a gTLD, the applicant agrees to accept the applicability of this gTLD dispute resolution process.

The four grounds for objection are as follows:

String Confusion Objection – The applied-for gTLD string is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another applied for gTLD string in the same round of applications.

Legal Rights Objection – The applied-for gTLD string infringes the existing legal rights of the objector.

Limited Public Interest Objection – The applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law.

Community Objection – There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted.

The same section of the Guidebook goes on to define what types of entities have standing to object under those four grounds for objection. Here's how that breaks down:

Grounds for objection : Who may object

Sting confusion: Existing TLD operator of gTLD applicant in current round

Legal rights: Rightsholders

Limited public interest: No limitations on who may file -- however, subject to a "quick look" designed for early conclusion of frivolous and/or abusive objections.

Community: Established institution associated with a clearly delineated community

If you look over the four potential grounds for objection, I can see how a .PORN or .SEX could be objected to under any or all of those categories, and looking at the list of potential objectors, you can see that the range of potential objectors is very broad, indeed.

Where potential objection on the part of the GAC is concerned, as we all now know from watching the approval process for .XXX unfold, hitherto the GAC's advice has been something that ICANN evidently can ignore as it sees fit -- but, if you look at the stated purpose for the GAC Advice stipulations in the new Guidebook, the intent of the process seems tailor-made to challenge potentially controversial gTLDs, as a .SEX or .PORN gTLD would be:

The process for GAC Advice on New gTLDs is intended to address applications that are identified by governments to be problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities.

So.... to sum up:

* If ICM chose to challenge a proposed gTLD that competes with .XXX, it's pretty clear that they would have standing to do so, and more than one potential basis on which to object.

* It's likely that many of the same groups that opposed .XXX would also object to any newly proposed gTLDs. (In the case of religious and family groups, these objections would most likely fall under "limited public interest.")

* Some members of the adult entertainment industry might object to a new porn-related gTLD, whether for the same or different reasons that they objected to .XXX (These would fall under "Community" objections, obviously.)

* No matter who wins out when the objection process has run its course, one thing is very clear after reading the dispute resolution procedures in the Guidebook: the process will NOT be quick.

I've also learned that one of the biggest hurdles that a new adult-specific gTLD might run into is found not in ICANN's gTLD Guidebook, but in a "notice of further inquiry" that the Commerce Dept/NTIA issued in connection with the renewal of the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) contract, which is coming up in September.

Under section C.2.2.1.3.2 of the new IANA contract it states:

Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders - - The Contractor shall, in collaboration with all relevant stakeholders for this function, develop a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it has applied the relevant policies and procedures, such as RFC 1591, to process requests associated with TLDs. In addition, the Contractor shall act in accordance with the relevant national laws of the jurisdiction which the TLD registry serves. For delegation requests for new generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor shall include documentation to demonstrate how the proposed string has received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and is supported by the global public interest.

The part I've put in bold there is a humdinger of a requirement, obviously, and one that had it been in place as a hurdler for .XXX to clear, might have derailed the whole shebang.

Evidently, that section C.2.2.1.3.2 in the new IANA contract is being referred to by some as the ".XXX clause" -- a new wrinkle added as a direct result of how unhappy the GAC was to have their "advice" concerning .XXX ignored by the ICANN Board.

So, there you have it; probably WAY more than you ever wanted to know about how a potential challenge to a new porn-related gTLD would work..... and yet it still doesn't really answer the question "Can ICM block such an application?" The answer to that question remains "maybe," and subject to the specific facts of any given application/objection.

My personal take on it is this: the potential hassle outlined above is way too big a pain the ass to go through to establish .SEX or a .PORN, but any adult company that wants to establish "vanity gTLDs" for their own brand/product names likely wouldn't be subjected to such a challenge (not from ICM, at least).

All things considered, I'd say ICM is very fortunate that they didn't have to clear the bar as it is set now for new TLDs, because I doubt .XXX could have survived a challenge under the rules and objection criteria in place for the new gTLDs.

None of this is to say that nobody should (or will) try to establish a new porn-related gTLD, or that they will fail if they try. I'm just saying the process is now a whole lot more complicated and difficult than the one ICM applied under in their second go at winning the contract to run .XXX, back in 2004.

Here's hoping this information is useful to some of you, or at least mildly interesting, and not just a whole lot of words I've slapped on GFY for no real purpose... ;-)

[Robbie]

Thanks Quentin.

I'm with you...looks like a big "maybe" to me too.

On a lighter note...I think that Hustler should buy a new extension that would be perfect for what seems to be the only thing they release these days: .NOTXXX

[Herd]

U mean the whole ICANN .XXX deal was designed so there would be no competion for the adult only tld? Oh thats a surprise.

Getting .XXX approved by ICANN wasnt too easy though. It did take over 10 years, US president defeating it, spending countless millions of dollars and ICANN having to go total rogue against the GAC and the world in order to finally pass it.

But it boils down to if ICM can get the US govt, to legitimize the trafficking of all pornography on the internet, soley thru their .XXX tld. Getting a few ICANN members to play ball was one thing. But trying to convince the United States Congress is a total different animal. Regardless of their IFFOR front.

[Redrob]

Quentin,

Thank you for all your hard work on this issue. You have clarified the situation somewhat.

Nothing is this matter is simple.