GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Ok, it's been posted.... "Preliminary Report" of the recent ICANN meeting re .XXX (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=715521)

polish_aristocrat 03-17-2007 12:42 AM
Ok, it's been posted.... "Preliminary Report" of the recent ICANN meeting re .XXX
 
looks like noone posted it yet, so let me be the first again

It seems to me like the previous board meeting minutes were more interesting and the ICANN Directors were debating more whether .xxx has adult webmasters community or not. This time more time was given to discuss issues related to GAC support (GAC = Governmental Advisory Committee, basically many governments from all over the word, which seem to be opposed towards .xxx for various reasons). ICANN acknowledged that they have recently received hundreds of pages of documents from ICM indicating their proposal has adult community support. Basically at the next public ICANN meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, 26-30 March, a final vote regarding .xxx can be expected...

from this site

icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13mar07.htm

Consideration of Proposed .XXX Registry Agreement


Quote:
The Chairman introduced this item by noting that the ICM Registry had in recent days prior to this meeting supplied hundreds of additional pages of information in support of their proposal. This was in addition to the substantive amount of material already supplied. He noted that some of that materials had been made publicly available and some could not be posted given that names of individuals were involved in some of the documentation.

John Jeffrey confirmed that ICM has represented that the identities of people and entities obtained in pre-registrations and from their website form were not cleared for public posting.

The Chairman asked John to refresh the Board's recollection on the status of this matter and the process for decision-making. John read the Board's last resolution from the 12 February 2007 Meeting where staff was requested to do the following: a) post the revised version of the Appendix S to the proposed .XXX registry agreement to the ICANN website to seek additional public comment; and b) consult with ICM and provide further information to the Board about whether the sponsorship criteria has been met for the creation of a new proposed .XXX sTLD.

John further indicated that ICM had held two briefing sessions for the Board during the previous week on sponsorship issues and questions; and that in addition ICM had presented or re-presented a number of documents for the board to consider. John noted that these materials, in their redacted form has been posted on the ICANN website. John indicated that ICM has represented that the identities of people and entities obtained in pre-registration materials, and webmaster information obtained from their website form were not cleared for public posting.

John asked Kurt Pritz to summarize the public comment postings. Kurt Pritz advised that the most recent public comment periods on the changes to Appendix S had produced 946 comments against the establishment of the .XXX registry and that these fell into two categories: comments that considered the domain would see an increase in adult content on the Internet, and those contending that there was little support for the creation of the domain amongst the sponsoring community. Kurt noted that there had also been comments in favor and these were outlined in a memorandum to the Board from ICM which stated that the sponsoring community was a self identified group that works together to provide adult content on-line. A full summary of those comments was provided to the board for their review and consideration.

John referred the Board to the decision-making 'tree' outlined at the last meeting on the pending issues. He identified three issue areas: 1) Community Review Issues ? whether there had been sufficient community review and public comment on the application and agreement and the sufficiency of the proposed agreement; 2) Government Advisory Committee Public Policy Advice ? raising questions regarding: a) the status of advice from the Government Advisory Committee (GAC); b) a request for clarification of the letter from the GAC Chair and Chair-Elect; and c) whether additional public policy advice had been received or was expected following the GAC's Wellington Communique; and 3) A determination of of how ICM's proposed agreement, application and materials submitted measure up against the RFP requirements.

John noted in relation to community input that since the initial application on the proposed application and revised contract, there had been over 200,000 emails sent to ICANN and additionally over 1300 separate comments had been received in the public comment forums established by ICANN. Paul Twomey added that he had personally received many personal emails, mainly from the American Family Association, opposed to the creation of the domain. John confirmed that those emails were included in the overall count and that Staff had attempted to post all of them. John stressed that it was important that the ICANN Board take into account the unprecedented public comments regarding this matter relating to any decision that might be made on this topic.

Vint Cerf then raised an issue regarding whether the sponsorship criteria is met for the creation of a new .XXX sTLD, and noted that there had been an assertion by ICM that 76,000 pre- registrations indicated significant support for its creation. Vint noted that he could not tell whether those had been verified in any way. That is, whether there was a way of determining whether they were from webmasters in adult on-line industry or individuals. Kurt Pritz indicated that ICM had indicated that they had been verified and indicated that in addition to this 1217 webmasters from the adult entertainment industry had identified themselves as being in support of the sTLD. He said that each person so registering had to provide a url so it was possible to track that back to see if it represented an adult content site.

In relation to the GAC Communiqué in Wellington, the Chairman said that he still believed that the GAC was to provide advice on whether the proposal met the requirements of a sTLD. GAC Chairman and GAC Board Liaison, Sharil Tarmizi, said that he believed that it had been addressed.

polish_aristocrat 03-17-2007 12:43 AM
part 2.....


Quote:
John Jeffrey advised that it was an open question as to whether the GAC Communiqué in Wellington was intended to address the current proposed contract for the creation of the .XXX domain. He noted that the letter from Sharil and from Janis Karklins of February 2, 2007 had indicated that further advice would be sought at ICANN's Lisbon meeting. GAC Chair-Elect and GAC Liaison-Elect, Janis Karklins pointed out that the letter had been written with the input of a number of delegates of the GAC endorsed by using silent procedure on the GAC mailing list, but always in the understanding that further input would be discussed by the full GAC at the GAC meeting to be held in Lisbon. Janis further indicated that it remained unclear on whether there would be any additional advice from the GAC during Lisbon or at any time in the future, noting the strong stated positions of some GAC Members on this issue.

The Chairman then put some suggestions for moving forward on the decision to approve the contract to enable the creation of .XXX domain. He said that if the Board were to make a decision on this matter, it would need a very clear rationale for reaching its decision.

He said he believed that Board members needed to contribute to the development of these rationales regardless of which way they intended to vote. He also asked whether the Board was of a mind to vote at this meeting. He called for a vote to determine whether members were prepared to vote at this meeting.

It was moved Rita Rodin and seconded Steve Goldstein that there be a vote to determine whether Board Members were prepared to vote at this meeting.

The Chairman conducted a roll call vote on this item and Board members voted accordingly:

Voted in favor of taking a vote at this meeting: Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, Demi Getschko, Joichi Ito, Dave Wodelet, Steve Goldstein, Alejandro Pisanty, and Rita Rodin.

Against: Vinton G. Cerf, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Roberto Gaetano, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Vanda Scartezini, and Paul Twomey,

A number of Board members including Peter Dengate-Thrush, Roberto Gaetano, Vanda Scartezini and Rajasekhar Ramaraj believed that it was not appropriate to vote until after the Lisbon meeting given its proximity. Paul Twomey indicated that a clear rationale for any vote must be discussed by the Board Members before such a vote.

John Jeffrey raised a point of order regarding whether it was clear from the dialogue what the proposed motion was to be and the rationale for it. John recommended that it be made very clear what the Board would be voting on in a proposed motion and that the Board should discuss their rationale before a vote should occur. A point was raised by Vint Cerf regarding the limited amount of time left in the meeting to conclude this vote. Rita Rodin indicated that she believed it was important for the Board to decide to vote, but given the position of the General Counsel that it had not yet been made clear what was to be voted on, she would defer to General Counsel and change her previous position regarding taking a vote during this meeting. Rita indicated that the Board and staff must commit to clearly determining what the Board was voting on before Lisbon and commit to voting on the issue at Lisbon.

Sharil Tarmizi said that with the Lisbon meeting being under two weeks away that it was appropriate to seek additional advice from the GAC. He emphasized however that the request, if any, would need to be made expeditiously to meet GAC timetables. He also noted the strong and stated positions of some of the GAC members on this issue.

Janis Karklins said that he understood Sharil's view, and believed that the GAC was still waiting for responses to specific questions raised in the Wellington Communiqué and reiterated in the 2 February GAC communication.

Paul Twomey responded that one of the difficulties in providing a response to the GAC is that they asked in Wellington what they already asked at the ICANN Mar del Plata meeting. Those questions related to information to do with the aspects of the implementation of the name, that could only be provided after the decision to create the name had been taken.

Notwithstanding this Janis Karklins asked if a response to the GAC Chair and Chair-Elect's Letter of 2 February 2007 could be expected prior to Lisbon and the Chairman said that a response would be provided. This was confirmed by Paul Twomey, who indicated that some of the questions raised had been responded to in previous letters and that additional clarity around the GAC's advice could be presented on this matter.

The Chairman asked if the Board would be prepared to vote on this matter at the Lisbon meeting and suggested that it would be useful for the Board Members to engage in additional deliberation on the materials already received and that they spend time setting out their positions in writing and reaching a clear rationale regarding to any proposed board action.

The Board Members made comments in support of this approach. The Chairman asked Board Members to make contributions to the preparation of these positions for the Lisbon Meeting discussions

DamageX 03-17-2007 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat (Post 12097590)
ICANN acknowledged that they have recently received hundreds of pages of documents from ICM indicating their proposal has adult community support.
Did they acknowledge having verified those documents for actually being true?

polish_aristocrat 03-17-2007 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamageX (Post 12097624)
Did they acknowledge having verified those documents for actually being true?
I don't know more than I have quoted above....

DamageX 03-17-2007 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat (Post 12097631)
I don't know more than I have quoted above....
I know, the question was mostly rhetorical. :)

SmokeyTheBear 03-17-2007 01:24 AM
I have a very hard time beliveing this


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

Kurt Pritz indicated that ICM had indicated that they had been verified and indicated that in addition to this 1217 webmasters from the adult entertainment industry had identified themselves as being in support of the sTLD. He said that b]each person so registering had to provide a url so it was possible to track that back to see if it represented an adult content site[/b].


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

spacedog 03-17-2007 01:32 AM
Well..

that's very sneaky & shady?

pre-registrations? What's this? behind closed doors money exchanging for prime names in advance? Now you know secret deals are being made here.

Also, I doubt that these so call pre-registrations all come from members of our community.. sounds more like to me that these are only domainers & close friends of lawleys & icm insiders trying to cash in on a potential land rush. This could be reason why they're keeping their identities secret, because they don't want the cat out of the bag that it's all lies.

Brujah 03-17-2007 02:30 AM
is DomainNameSystems and/or Cheapies involved in this? Weren't they selling pre-registrations for .XXX? Maybe they submitted the names of everyone who registered for a name.

polish_aristocrat 03-17-2007 02:47 AM
shit it seems like Im the person best educated on this issue

I guess I could get an PhD in it :Graucho

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
I have a very hard time beliveing this


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

Kurt Pritz indicated that ICM had indicated that they had been verified and indicated that in addition to this 1217 webmasters from the adult entertainment industry had identified themselves as being in support of the sTLD. He said that b]each person so registering had to provide a url so it was possible to track that back to see if it represented an adult content site[/b].


---------------------------
It has been discussed in a previous threads recently. It seems like the number of 1217 was mentioned as the number of webmasters who filled in some form on ICM's website... The default option was "I support .xxx - I want to register a .xxx domain" or something like that as far as i remember it correctly.

This allows ICM to twist the facts for obvious reasons - and it is also obvious that many people selected that option, without being aware that their inquiry to ICM counts as a voice of support for .xxx. Not to mention, that from what i know, several people who are against .xxx also emailed ICM asking them about the possible registration of .xxx domains. That was just a business decision of being pro-active and getting the facts about .xxx straight from the source. It is also obvious that those people - when they emailed ICM, they didn't write "hi, i hate .xxx so much that I can't sleep at night because of it, but i want to make sure if it goes live, how do I regster it"... They just expressed interest in learning the facts how .xxx will/would be registered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spacedog
Well..

that's very sneaky & shady?

pre-registrations? What's this? behind closed doors money exchanging for prime names in advance? Now you know secret deals are being made here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
is DomainNameSystems and/or Cheapies involved in this? Weren't they selling pre-registrations for .XXX? Maybe they submitted the names of everyone who registered for a name.
let's not add more confusion to this - the pre-registration was possible at ICM's website and it started shortly after ICANN rejected .xxx (!!) in May last year.

Yes, I have no problems believing that many people registered there to pre-register names, but most of them were probably clueless idiots, or n00bs, or domainers... or also serious business owners who hate .xxx but they were pre-registering their com equivaalents just in case....

I would even go as far and say that the .xxx pre-registration process on ICM's website was a fake one, because its purpose was only to get some numbers to be able to show them to ICANN. In my opinion, should .xxx be really approved then the pre-registration process would start again, so the reason for the pre-registration process while .xxx was rejected was just to make the impression to ICANN that there's a huge demand for .xxx :disgust

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 03-17-2007 02:54 AM
.xxx is gonna die I believe....

FightThisPatent 03-17-2007 07:36 AM
interesting reading. My guess is they listen to GAC members and then vote after Lisbon.

I just posted this up to ICANN board:

A simplified reason for rejecting .XXX sTLD is that it is the only TLD that has ever been suggested to be used as a filtering/blocking mechanism for website visitors.

All other TLD are used by websites to ATTRACT website visitors.


If a TLD has caused this much controversy, then it must not be a good thing. While there have been issues with .biz and .travel, etc.. no where has there been such vocal opposition to a TLD that domain owners feel that HARM will be done from a TLD.



Fight the bump!

Zester 03-17-2007 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat (Post 12097836)
shit it seems like Im the person best educated on this issue

I guess I could get an PhD in it :Graucho


It has been discussed in a previous threads recently. It seems like the number of 1217 was mentioned as the number of webmasters who filled in some form on ICM's website... The default option was "I support .xxx - I want to register a .xxx domain" or something like that as far as i remember it correctly.

This allows ICM to twist the facts for obvious reasons - and it is also obvious that many people selected that option, without being aware that their inquiry to ICM counts as a voice of support for .xxx. Not to mention, that from what i know, several people who are against .xxx also emailed ICM asking them about the possible registration of .xxx domains. That was just a business decision of being pro-active and getting the facts about .xxx straight from the source. It is also obvious that those people - when they emailed ICM, they didn't write "hi, i hate .xxx so much that I can't sleep at night because of it, but i want to make sure if it goes live, how do I regster it"... They just expressed interest in learning the facts how .xxx will/would be registered.






let's not add more confusion to this - the pre-registration was possible at ICM's website and it started shortly after ICANN rejected .xxx (!!) in May last year.

Yes, I have no problems believing that many people registered there to pre-register names, but most of them were probably clueless idiots, or n00bs, or domainers... or also serious business owners who hate .xxx but they were pre-registering their com equivaalents just in case....

I would even go as far and say that the .xxx pre-registration process on ICM's website was a fake one, because its purpose was only to get some numbers to be able to show them to ICANN. In my opinion, should .xxx be really approved then the pre-registration process would start again, so the reason for the pre-registration process while .xxx was rejected was just to make the impression to ICANN that there's a huge demand for .xxx :disgust
my good man, you have some good points here that makes ICM look like a scoundrel. why don't you notify ICANN of them ?

DamageX 03-17-2007 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 12098433)
interesting reading. My guess is they listen to GAC members and then vote after Lisbon.

I just posted this up to ICANN board:

A simplified reason for rejecting .XXX sTLD is that it is the only TLD that has ever been suggested to be used as a filtering/blocking mechanism for website visitors.

All other TLD are used by websites to ATTRACT website visitors.


If a TLD has caused this much controversy, then it must not be a good thing. While there have been issues with .biz and .travel, etc.. no where has there been such vocal opposition to a TLD that domain owners feel that HARM will be done from a TLD.



Fight the bump!
Hopefully they understand this. :)

p0rnus 03-17-2007 08:09 AM
I've been having a hardtime following this since it all started, so I have a couple questions...

What will this mean for current adult sites?

and

It seems that with all the pre-registrations....aren't we (as a whole community) stabbing ourselves in the back?

tony286 03-17-2007 09:26 AM
I cant believe Icann sees the preregs as a show of support.

Rhesus 03-17-2007 12:03 PM
Sounds like Vint is not completely aware of what is going on.

GeorgeK 03-17-2007 12:26 PM
What was also interesting in the minutes was:

Quote:
John further indicated that ICM had held two briefing sessions for the Board during the previous week on sponsorship issues and questions; and that in addition ICM had presented or re-presented a number of documents for the board to consider. John noted that these materials, in their redacted form has been posted on the ICANN website.
(bold added for emphasis)

If you think you have equal access to the Board, when they're meeting in private sessions with ICM (and only providing redacted documents later), think again.

On the bright side, if ICANN is ever sued, one can possibly get access to the lists of secret supporters. That would be very informative. Maybe someone in the US (a reporter, perhaps?) can file a "Freedom of Information Act" request with the Department of Commerce, or the NTIA, to see the lists.

FightThisPatent 03-17-2007 03:34 PM
Fight the bump!

seeric 03-17-2007 04:00 PM
they sure do seem to spend a lot of time voting on whether to vote or not.

DonkeyPunchProductions 03-17-2007 05:26 PM
thanks for the research...

tony286 03-17-2007 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeK (Post 12099555)
What was also interesting in the minutes was:



(bold added for emphasis)

If you think you have equal access to the Board, when they're meeting in private sessions with ICM (and only providing redacted documents later), think again.

On the bright side, if ICANN is ever sued, one can possibly get access to the lists of secret supporters. That would be very informative. Maybe someone in the US (a reporter, perhaps?) can file a "Freedom of Information Act" request with the Department of Commerce, or the NTIA, to see the lists.
Icann is not a government agency so they dont fall under the freedom of indo act.After reading it doesnt look too good.

RawAlex 03-17-2007 06:57 PM
Bend over people, here comes the biggest fucking the adult industry will ever get.

Anyone want to buy domains? I think I might be getting out of here.

tony286 03-17-2007 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 12100844)
Bend over people, here comes the biggest fucking the adult industry will ever get.

Anyone want to buy domains? I think I might be getting out of here.
I got a sad feeling you may be right :(

cspdinc 03-17-2007 07:05 PM
xxx means no porn in the heartland... mark my words. No porn in the south, no isp will carry it to show how, upright they are.

DO NOT underestimate the power of the bible thumpers. I live with them now and its scary. Just a inch away from buring at the stakes, they only need one little push to carry it into a religious crusade to purge the evil that xxx represents.

The money lost means nothing to them. There is no reasoning with them.
Living In la for years made me forget how much religion has a stranglehold on people here. Its downright creepy.

tony286 03-17-2007 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cspdinc (Post 12100877)
xxx means no porn in the heartland... mark my words. No porn in the south, no isp will carry it to show how, upright they are.

DO NOT underestimate the power of the bible thumpers. I live with them now and its scary. Just a inch away from buring at the stakes, they only need one little push to carry it into a religious crusade to purge the evil that xxx represents.

The money lost means nothing to them. There is no reasoning with them.
Living In la for years made me forget how much religion has a stranglehold on people here. Its downright creepy.
Thats why I find it hard to believe big fish are supporting this,unless I give them more credit for being smart than they deserve. I figure sales will be cut in half easy and we dont know what fucked rules iffor will have and if it becomes the law whats to stop them from charging a 1000 dollars a domain.

FightThisPatent 03-17-2007 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12100827)
Icann is not a government agency so they dont fall under the freedom of indo act.After reading it doesnt look too good.

no, but if ICM sent in documentation to Dept. of Commerce to show the letters of support, then it would be able to be requested under FOIA.


Fight the paper trail!

tony286 03-17-2007 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 12101071)
no, but if ICM sent in documentation to Dept. of Commerce to show the letters of support, then it would be able to be requested under FOIA.


Fight the paper trail!
didnt know that good point

polish_aristocrat 03-19-2007 12:36 AM
bump for those who missed this thread

mikeyddddd 03-19-2007 01:25 AM

slavdogg 03-19-2007 01:47 AM
all the pre registrations, huh ?

must be the same as all the insiders that also filed for dot xxx trademarks
check the the trademark database of dot xxx domains,
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...ate=bpori0.1.1

V_RocKs 03-19-2007 01:59 AM
dot XXX is for pussies. Do you want your dot XXX with a twist?

Avery 03-19-2007 03:58 AM
so long .my god

polish_aristocrat 03-19-2007 09:52 AM
Lisbon starts in one week....

gAmE-MaStEr 03-19-2007 01:58 PM
yes.......

Unlimited 03-19-2007 02:30 PM
bump..........

The Dawg 03-19-2007 04:46 PM
. Bump .


* SLAVDOGG, can you hit me on ICQ, I would like to discuss something with you.

ICQ: 60330968

Thanks

SomeCreep 03-19-2007 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 12097680)
I have a very hard time beliveing this


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

Kurt Pritz indicated that ICM had indicated that they had been verified and indicated that in addition to this 1217 webmasters from the adult entertainment industry had identified themselves as being in support of the sTLD. He said that b]each person so registering had to provide a url so it was possible to track that back to see if it represented an adult content site[/b].


---------------------------
Lol, man I hate politics. That's probably 1217 webmasters supporting .xxx out of 50,000 webmasters that dont.

LadyMischief 03-19-2007 05:22 PM
The documents Stuart Lawley submitted to show that there was support from the webmaster community was all spin spin spin and out of context stuff. I really hope the FSC sets them straight in Lisbon :P

zibril 03-19-2007 05:51 PM
Bump.............

Jman 03-19-2007 05:54 PM
Fuck Dot XXX

tony286 03-19-2007 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMischief (Post 12112077)
The documents Stuart Lawley submitted to show that there was support from the webmaster community was all spin spin spin and out of context stuff. I really hope the FSC sets them straight in Lisbon :P
I hope it wont be too late.

seeric 03-19-2007 06:11 PM
.xxx won't pass.

polish_aristocrat 03-20-2007 02:14 AM
final bump for this thread


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123