Will ICANN Ignore/Burden This Industry If....

The dissenting opinion of the Panel?s Declaration concluded that ICM never satisfied the sponsorship requirements and criteria for a sponsored TLD, and that the ICANN Board denied ICM?s application for the .XXX sTLD "on the merits in an open and transparent forum." The Board could vote to adopt the dissenting opinion of the Panel?s Declaration on the basis that the Board thinks that the Panel?s majority opinion was wrong and that the Board?s conduct was consistent with ICANN?s Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.

To Whom It May Concern:

It is my opinion that ICANN should adopt the findings of the dissenting opinion of the Independent Review Panel?s declaration, which held that ICM never satisfied the sponsorship requirements and criteria for a sponsored TLD. Specifically, I believe ICM never demonstrated that it has the support of the prospective sponsoring community for its proposal.

As a stakeholder in the relevant sponsoring community for the proposed .XXX sTLD, I wholeheartedly oppose the establishment of this new TLD, and I believe that the vast majority of stakeholders in our community are similarly inclined. The evidence of support presented by ICM is outweighed by the stated opposition to the sTLD, and a significant amount of the evidence of support presented by ICM is now quite old, and may include individuals who have actually reversed their position in the months and years since they originally stated support for the TLD.

At the very least, I believe ICANN has a responsibility to the sponsoring community at issue here to consider ICM?s application de novo, given the substantive questions that exist as to the amount, nature and character of the sponsoring community support ICM has asserted that its proposal enjoys.

My own opposition to ICM?s proposal stems in part from the paucity of detail currently available about how the sTLD would be operated by its proposed governing body, IFFOR. Among other defects, the information that has been provided to the sponsoring community thus far concerning the eventual ?best practices? and rules of conduct for .XXX sites is woefully inadequate in detail. For example, there has been no specific information provided as to what manner of content will or will not be deemed acceptable by IFFOR, a body whose own nature and structure remain something of a mystery to this point.

Given the dearth of reliable information about the eventual nature of the .XXX-related policies and protocols, I can find no rational basis to support the establishment of this sTLD. Asking for me to support such an ill-defined proposal is akin to asking for me to support a political candidate who has not declared party affiliation, or published any meaningful policy platform whatsoever.

In my opinion, offering one?s support in this environment of imposed ignorance is a deeply irresponsible act, and I question whether my peers in the adult industry who have expressed support for this proposal have fully considered the potential ramifications, or even earnestly questioned what precisely it is that they have expressed support for.

For this reason, and for far too many additional reasons to address in a brief correspondence, I respectfully suggest that ICANN adopt the position of the IRP dissent, and ultimately either reject ICM?s application, or at a minimum, require that ICM provide further documentation of community support for its proposal.

Thank you and best regards,
Quentin Boyer
Director of Public Relations
PinkVisual.com/TopBucks.com