GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - I Alerted the Dept of Commerce, and ICANN GAC/Other Individuals of my ICANN Posting

FWIW, In case any of you want to use the below email addresses to forward copies of YOUR letters urging ICANN disapproval of .xxx, some pertinent email addresses are shown below in my forwarding/comments to the Secretary of Commerce (Mr. GUTIERREZ); my forwarding/comments to specific ICANN officials and many of the ICANN GAC (Governments Advisory Council) officials; and, my recent posting to the ICANN public comments page. Although my stage name is "Dave Cummings", for these communications, I used my real/legal name of David Conners in the below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave C.
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Fw: .xxx, IMO, Will Involve ICANN (not Just ICM/Iffor) in Many and Constant Court Cases, Possible Criminal Conspiracy Trials, and NOT Protect Children Like .kids Might!

Dear Mr Secretary:

Please personally get involved and lend the full power of the U.S. Department of Commerce to assist the "CC' addressees in stopping the .xxx domain approval which is presently under consideration at ICANN. IMO, there are some indications of "secret" deals being made by the .xxx petitioner ICM with others in exchange for their support, or their silence, (something that might involve courts and possibly law enforcement for years?) while this gets jammed down the throats of Red-Blooded All-Americans. The below letter lays it out for you, and I'm contactable if I can assist you. Please get .xxx permanently denied, and please push .kids for an early approval so that children REALLY CAN be better protected.

Sincerely,

David Conners
Lt Col, U.S. Army (ret); grandfather; voter; tax payer; Bronze Star recipient; and, Concerned Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave C.
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: Fw: .xxx, IMO, Will Involve ICANN (not Just ICM/Iffor) in Many and Constant Court Cases, Possible Criminal Conspiracy Trials, and NOT Protect Children Like .kids Might!

The Subject line for the below letter is what I just sent to the ICANN Public Comment Forum ([email protected]) concerning the pending .xxx TLD. I respectfully request that ALL of you esteemed addressees get actively involved in this pending .xxx matter and insure that the ongoing ICM matter does NOT get ram-rodded through and taint the entire ICANN organization's reputation.

Sincerely,

David Conners

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave C.
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:16 PM
Subject: .xxx, IMO, Will Involve ICANN (not Just ICM/Iffor) in Many and Constant Court Cases, Possible Criminal Conspiracy Trials, and NOT Protect Children Like .kids Might!

Besides the very important Subject Line which IMO is what will happen if .xxx is approved, the below letter encompasses my opinions and comments (and, the major adult webmaster boards certainly show significant negativism against .xxx; and, a lot of concern about possible deals that might involve conspiracies and other matters that could land ICANN/ICM/IFFOR/"INSIDERS"/etc in time-consuming court actions). Please read this letter, then re-read it, and then give it a lot of thought. Don't give ICANN a huge and continuing black eye or irreparable loss of reputation. Protect my four grandchildren by putting .kids on a fast tract for approval; and, permanently reject the ICM matter and .xxx.

David Conners
Parent/Grandparent/Veteran/Tax-payer/Voter

Here's the letter (Which as of this moment, ICM has Not Responded to):

In my First Amendment protected free speech personal opinion, I herewith think/feel that ICM should immediately and permanently:

1. Withdraw their ongoing .xxx submission to ICANN; instead, show a non-profit motive and a helpful concern for children by instead requesting that ICANN quickly approve .kids.

2. Publicly publish on this and other boards, with a copy to ICANN (and Department of Justice?), the names and organizations of any person(s) or entity which they have entered into either a formal or informal or verbal deal/arrangement/understanding/trade/etc concerning .xxx, and reveal the specific and detailed quid pro quid and financial and other aspects of the matter with each person/entity (If ICM agrees to immediately and without reservation do Item 1 above, this paragraph might be mute?).

3. Provide a notarized letter to the Free Speech Coalition, with emailed and written copies to ICANN as well as this and other similar boards, that if .xxx is approved, ICM and it's personnel/partners/associates/"deal" individuals and entities/etc, whether already publicly disclosed or "secret", as individuals as well as organizations and corporate structures, will guarantee, backed by a voluntary and totally unrestricted unlocking of the corporate lawsuit veil and an agreement that the personal assets of all individuals involved are volunteered and available in addition to corporate assets for any future civil lawsuit findings, and herewith agrees that:

a. All present "adult" .com domains and/or .com sites will be grand-fathered indefinitely and have sole and continuing extended total rights, to and from ICM and other/future registries, to register their same .com domain name/site as a .xxx at the pricing discussed in the below paragraph c.

b. Like the free spirit of American and business competition, other registries may also offer .xxx registrations at or below the same price that they now presently offer .com registrations.

c. Since and like present .com adult sites/domains are already "policed" by government authorities, ICM agrees to drop it's proposed oversight, monitoring of content, censorship, and other aspects now being used to justify registration prices for .xxx that exceed .com prices presently offered by other registries. ICM will pledge not to charge more than $10 per .xxx registration.

d. If any future legislation at any level of government in any country is passed that restricts .xxx in any way that .com is not presently affected, or if any ISP/3d Party Billing/etc non-government element imposes rules/regulations/restrictions/etc which in any way limit revenue or operations of .xxx domains/sites, ICM and it's "secret" associates as mentioned in Paragraph 2 above, will immediately become monetarily responsible to cover all revenue losses and to refund .xxx registration fees, and to financially cover a buy-back of the former .com domain to replace the .xxx domain.

In my personal opinion, if ICM immediately does all of the above, people considering contact with their Senators and Representatives, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and other law enforcement and government agencies to seek a federal Court TRO against the ICANN decision while insisting upon the conduct of a full and complete Governmental investigation to insure that no criminal/conspiratorial/RICO/IRS/etc regulations or laws have been assailed by ICM or it's "secret" associates, should probably consider backing off; the same for non-U.S. folks affected adversely by .xxx if it is approved.

ICM, are you willing to quickly do the above?

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave C.
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: Canada's Government is Also Against .xxx, per http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/

COMMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

The Government of Canada thanks ICANN for providing an opportunity to comment on the revised proposed agreement with ICM providing for designation of a .XXX sTLD registry. Canada continues to participate in the ICANN Government Advisory Committee?s discussion of the creation of this new sTLD. However, Canada is concerned with the direction the ICANN process appears to be taking and the possible implication of that direction for the future of the organization and of the Internet itself. The following comments are intended to draw our concerns to the attention of the broader Internet community.

In 2006, in our response to the United States Department of Commerce Notice of Inquiry (NOI), Canada made the following point: ?? it is essential to underscore and to reiterate the narrow technical nature of ICANN?s mandate, as a body responsible for the administration of Internet names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. We recognize that these technical issues occasionally give rise to policy considerations. This has led to confusion about ICANN's role and sometimes distracted the organization from its core mandate. Canada is of the view that, going forward, ICANN and its stakeholders should be scrupulous in taking a very narrow view of ICANN's policy functions, ensuring that any policy issues considered arise directly from and/or are inextricably linked to the organization?s core technical functions. Any other policy issues should be referred to other more appropriate bodies.? Our response went on to say: ?In considering the policy-making aspect of ICANN?s role, it is of fundamental importance to make a distinction between broad Internet-related public policy issues such as spam, fraud, child pornography, etc., which are clearly outside ICANN?s mandate, and the more focused policy issues directly related to the technical functioning of the Internet, which are within its mandate.?

We have reviewed the content of the revised proposed agreement with ICM and other materials provided by the company and we are concerned that many terms of the agreement appear to require, permit or encourage ICANN to venture far beyond its core technical functions.[i] Specifically, the proposed agreement appears to give ICANN the right to monitor the fulfilment of ICM?s obligations and policy implementation in areas beyond what might reasonably be considered a technically-focused mandate. Some examples:

· ICANN is given an opportunity to review and negotiate policies[ii] proposed by the Registry Operator or the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR), many having nothing to do with ICANN?s technical mandate (e.g., promoting child safety and preventing child pornography[iii])

· ICANN is also called upon to approve/disapprove of ICM?s choice of a monitoring agency[iv]

· ICANN (and the GAC) will be called upon to identify names of ?cultural and/or religious significance?[v] as well as ?names of territories, distinct economies, and other geographic and geopolitical names?[vi] to be reserved from use in the .xxx domain.

If ICANN accepts these and other similar conditions in the proposed agreement, it is moving in a very significant way toward taking on an ongoing policy-making and oversight role governing Internet content. There is little doubt that significant public policy issues arise in taking decisions on new gTLDs. The GAC is now in the process of developing ?Principles and Guidelines on Public Policy Issues Regarding the Implementation of New gTLDs? to provide guidance to ICANN on a range of those issues. The Government of Canada considers it inappropriate for ICANN to take on an ongoing role such as the one outlined in the revised proposed agreement with ICM.

Internet content is subject to generally applicable laws in countries where it is available. There have been various instances where national governments have successfully imposed limits on the domestic distribution over the Internet of content found to be in breach of domestic laws. Such content control is controversial in many states and poses many technical and legal challenges. Canada remains of the view that it is not and should not be ICANN?s mandate to set policy related to content or intended to censor, control or interfere with content on the Internet by way of its contracts with TLD operators.

In its discussion of various Internet related policy issues, the GAC and its members have frequently expressed concern about ICANN assuming policy functions which may infringe upon the policy responsibilities of sovereign states. The regulation of Internet content raises precisely this concern. Engaging ICANN in setting policy and supervisory functions related to content is a slippery slope. Once undertaken, the role will surely grow case by case.

ICANN was not conceived to be the global Internet content regulator. It has had some difficulty establishing legitimacy and full acceptance in carrying out its primary function related to managing the domain name system. ICANN?s becoming engaged in content regulation through its contracts with TLDs risks undermining its legitimacy and purpose at a time when these need to be reinforced and strengthened.

The Government of Canada therefore recommends that ICANN should not take upon itself these inappropriate functions. Instead, ICANN should look to alternative measures more appropriate to ICANN?s technical mandate. For example, ICANN could oblige the TLD to require registered sites to apply and maintain current control rating systems that enable filtering by end users who may wish to do so. Other technical solutions are now becoming available that could be required to provide governments or individuals the means to prevent access to sites deemed to be illegal or offensive. Such approaches would empower governments and individual Internet users to determine appropriate content policy as they see fit, without involving ICANN in determining such policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] The Government of Canada has not conducted a legal review of the proposed agreement. Comments regarding the proposed agreement are made without prejudice to the intent or effect of the agreement.

The following notes refer to page numbers in the ICANN revised proposed agreement with ICM providing for designation of a .XXX sTLD registry:

[ii] see ?Delegation of Authority,? point 4, page 88.

[iii] see ?Registry Operator?s Commitments,? page 86.

[iv] see ?Engagement and Fostering of Monitoring Agencies,? page 87.

[v] see ?Names with Cultural and/or Religious Significance,? page 73.

[vi] see Geographic and Geopolitical Names,? page 57.