ICANN Publishes Draft Agreement on .XXX with FSC Comments
 

ICANN Publishes Draft Agreement on .XXX

24 August 2010

A Revised Proposed Registry Agreement with ICM to be designated as the Registry Operator for a .XXX Sponsored Top Level Domain (.XXX), as well as documentation submitted by ICM Registry in connection with the expedited due diligence conducted at the direction of the Board are being posting today for public comment.

This information is posted for a thirty day public comment period commencing at 12:00 pm Pacific Daylight Time (19:00 UTC) on 24 August 2010 through 11:59 a.m. Pacific Daylight time (18:59 UTC) on 23 September 2010.

Comments can be submitted to [email protected] and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-revised-icm-agreement/.

Background

In 2004, ICM submitted an application in response to an ICANN Request for Proposals to create new Sponsored Top-Level Domain registries. A first proposed registry agreement for .XXX was posted on 16 April 2006. In May 2006, the Board voted not to approve the agreement as proposed, and two revisions to the proposed registry agreement were posted for public comment in January and February of 2007 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcement...nt-05jan07.htm).

On 30 March 2007, the Board rejected the proposed agreement. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/reso...m#_Toc36876524. After ICM sought an independent review of the Board?s denial of ICM?s application for the .XXX sTLD, the Independent Review Panel issued a declaration. On 25 June 2010, the Board determined to accept and act in accordance with some of the Panel?s findings and directed ICANN staff to conduct expedited due diligence of ICM and to proceed into draft contract negotiations with ICM. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/reso...jun10-en.htm#5. On 5 August 2010, the Board directed staff, upon receipt of ICM?s application documentation, to post ICM?s supporting documents and proposed registry agreement for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/reso...aug10-en.htm#9.

Consistent with the Board?s Resolutions of 25 June 2010 and 5 August 2010, ICANN staff is posting the following materials for public comment:

Due Diligence Documentation submitted by ICM Registry:
? ICM Cover Letter to ICANN [PDF, 58 KB] 1
? ICM Registry Certificate of Good Standing [PDF, 23 KB]
? Sponsoring Organization Agreement [PDF, 108 KB]
o Appendix A ? IFFOR Policy Development Process [PDF, 97 KB]
o Appendix B ? IFFOR Baseline Policies [PDF, 76 KB]
o Appendix C ? Compliance Reporting System [PDF, 171 KB]
o Appendix D ? IFFOR Organizational Chart [PDF, 25 KB]
o Appendix E ? Office of Ombudsman Charter [PDF, 57 KB]
? Registrar Flowthroughs to Registrants [PDF, 70 KB]
? Terms for Verification Credentials Contract [PDF, 82 KB]
? ICM Registry Policy: Preventing Abusive Registration [PDF, 55 KB]
? International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) Certificate of Good Standing and Articles of Incorporation [PDF, 90 KB]
? IFFOR Bylaws [PDF, 134 KB]
? 9 July 2010 Letter from Afilias Noting Reconfirmation as Service Provider [PDF, 38 KB]
? ICM & IFFOR Responsibilities and Obligations [PDF, 27 KB]

Revised Proposed Registry Agreement for the .XXX sTLD

The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement was submitted by ICM Registry after negotiations with ICANN staff. The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement has not been considered or approved by the ICANN Board. The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement is revised from the proposed agreement considered by the Board in March 2007.

The documents are provided in both clean and redlined form for ease in identifying revisions.

Revised Proposed Registry Agreement:
? Clean [PDF, 390 KB]
? Redline [PDF, 538 KB]

Revised Proposed Appendix S to Registry Agreement:
? Clean [PDF, 214 KB]
? Redline [PDF, 417 KB]

Some of the major changes between the 2007 versions and the current proposed versions are:
? The agreement is revised to reflect changes to address DNSSEC handling and current technical specifications, as well as links to current ICANN processes;
? The agreement is revised to be consistent with most sTLD agreements in the renewal terms.
? The termination, assignment and subcontracting provisions have been revised and clarified.
? Modifications to Appendix S to further define the sTLD community and to provide the requirements of ICM in developing and implementing policy for the TLD through IFFOR, consistent with the ICM/IFFOR Sponsoring Organization Agreement and the sTLD charter.
ICM has committed to sign a standard release of all claims against ICANN in conjunction with the execution of a Registry Agreement.



Comments from FSC



ICANN Publishes Draft Agreement on .XXX.

Marina Del Rey, CA ? This morning posted ICM?s draft agreement on a .XXX sponsored top level domain (sTLD).

On 30 March 2007, the Board rejected the proposed agreement. ICM sought an independent review of the Board?s denial of ICM?s application for the .XXX sTLD. Two of the three judges on the Independent Review Panel issued a statement that they believed ICM met its requirements for a .xxx sTLD, the third justice was in dissent of the opinion. ICANN Board members reluctantly voted to act accordance with some of the Panel?s findings and directed ICANN staff to conduct expedited due diligence of ICM and to proceed into draft contract negotiations with ICM.

Part of the requirements of that due diligence is the posting of the ICM application for public comment.

?FSC plans to sift through the hundreds of pages of the application and its associated documents,? said Diane Duke FSC Executive Director. ?We will then and provide feedback to the industry about ICM?s application as well as the suggested next steps for the industry and FSC in blocking ICM?s .XXX sTLD. FSC members and the industry can expect additional information from FSC by the week?s end.?

The application will be posted for a thirty day public comment period commencing at 12:00 noon Pacific Daylight August 24, 2010 through 11:59 a.m. Pacific Daylight time September 23, 2010.

Comments can be submitted to [email protected] and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-revised-icm-agreement/.

Duke reminded industry members, ?This is just another step in a process-it is far from over and CERTAINLY not a done deal.?

fuck the .xxx tld!

Bump for FSC

can anyone explain what this means in few words?

fuck this .xxx shit.

If so, that would be great. I lost focus about 4 sentences in, and couldn't tell you what I just read, or what it meant.

So you read it all also?

Time to get comments in for the 3rd or 4th time. Maybe I should hit up some of the huge churches here in town and let them know that the pigs involved are going to make it easier for their children to access porn. I am sure that will get some comments ;)

Fuck .xxx, Fuck ICM and Fuck the ASACP for trying to sell us all down the road :321GFY

got my comment in for the 5th time already.
i never in my life seen anything pushed so hard to be passed into law as this.

Fuck .XXX as well.

It's all about greed for ICM and the ASACP :winkwink:

And not to protect children from accessing porn like they want you to believe!

xfbdsfhdfghdfgndghdghjgfhjhfg

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Back to the top!

Fight the scum trying to sell us out for the sake of greed :thumbsup

so true Nikki this will hurt alot of us me including 60.00 for a domain and renewing 5 or more on some days which I do doesnt take a math whiz to figure it out.

fuck them even if its to protect a branded name i still wont support it.

i hope this will be the last we hear of it.

The premium domain is .com in America. All other TLD's should be less than the fees for .com, not more. I won't pay more for less.

I think much of their model involves owners trying to secure their names in case it becomes mandatory.

Back to the top :thumbsup

This is serious business guys. They are trying real hard to fuck everyone. Create a ghetto, a monopoly bullshit i call this.

FIGHT THIS or die, simple as that.

The ICM will be the first to lobby to make the .xxx tld mandatory for adult sites....

Does the proposed .XXX contract with ICANN require the same price be charged to all registrars / same for all domains? And does it have a price cap?

.COM, .NET, and .ORG (and I think some other gTLDs) are price restricted and capped - that's very important.

If .XXX isn't priced capped, ICM could potentially charge variable registration / renewal prices depending on the popularity of the domain (ie. like .TV does)...

Plus ICM could increase prices, including renewals, to whatever they want ... the proposed $60 base rate to start, over several years, could potentially escalate to $250, $500, $1000, who knows!?

IMHO, $250+ prices are very possible, if use of .XXX by adult sites is mandated by law and/or (more likely) by policy - ie. some webhosts and credit card processors could require that adult sites must operate on a .XXX domain.

Ron

Thank you for pointing this out. This is just another good reason why we do not need .XXX and a pretty clear sign that this is all about the big money grab.....looking down the road ;)
And this could become a nightmare for quite a few business owners if we do not put a stop to this madness.

Bump for comments.

like i said in an earlier thread, i don't know whether to laugh or cry at an industry that is so bent on destroying itself in such a short time....




.

This needs ALL of us to stand up and be counted (again).

What is even sadder are the same people (group/s) who are pushing this .XXX , acting as if they are everyone?s good ole buddy??.we all know who they are and they are NOT your buddy ;)

Hopefully this will be the last round, but I highly doubt it because when money and greed override morals, almost anything is possible!

Get your comments in, even if you just post?ya or na :thumbsup

Has anyone heard an explanation as to why the registration costs need to be so much higher than a .com? If they were .com costs, it might not be so bad (no, it would still suck as it even then it would double everyones cost of doing business) but this is just plain, naked greed. I'd like to hear his explanation of why a registered .xxx domain should cost so much.

I have read through the Draft Agreement mumbo jumbo (
http://www.icann.org/en/announcement...24aug10-en.htm
) and could not find anything about a price cap on the proposed $60 domain so who knows.

It would sure be nice if someone could give us some answers, especially when they are playing with everyone's livelihood :disgust

Nikki: You're right, I couldn't find the reference to price caps either, and noted so in my comments. .info/biz/org tried the exact same thing years ago, but the public rose up and forced the registries to back down, see:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_...fo_org_domain/
http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/

The relevant section in the .com contract, which *does* have price caps, is section 7.3.(d), see:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...om-01mar06.htm

In .biz, it's also section 7.3:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...mt-27apr10.htm

In .org, it's also section 7.3:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...mt-16jul08.htm

You'll note that section 7.3 *doesn't exist* in the .xxx draft contract. That's exactly how .biz/info/org tried to sneak through the elimination of price caps, through an act of omission. If folks didn't know exactly what to look for, they would have missed it entirely (fortunately I know exactly what to look for, as I follow ICANN matters closely).

So, when they talk about a price of $60/yr, ask ICANN and ICM Registry to say where it says that specifically in the contracts. If it doesn't say anything, then they're free to charge anything. Indeed, it appears that the contract between IFFOR and ICM Registry specifically says that pricing responsibility is delegated to ICM (see Appendix S, page 2, item 3.c).

So, contract details are important. If .xxx is approved and this agreement goes through with no price caps explicitly in the agreement, you're at great risk. Do you really think that it would/could ever be amended later, to "fix" the contract to protect domain owners/regisrants, if ICM sneaked through no price caps, especially given how ICM has been so vigorous with their lawyers? Fat chance.

Plus, it creates a bad precedent for .com owners (that's my main interest, as I don't plan to register any .xxx domains).

not near as many people are posting comments.

Just to be clear, as Ron suggested above, the risk isn't that they charge $100/yr for everyone, if there are no price caps. The real risk is that they charge a playboy.xxx or adultfriendfinder.xxx or hustler.xxx $100,000/yr or $1 million/yr (or whatever the market will bear, since it's uncapped) for a renewal, versus $60/yr for a less popular site (say FourLongRandomWords.xxx). And if FourLongRandomWords.xxx ever became popular, they could bump up the renewal fees from $60/yr to anything they wanted, to maximize their own profits as the registry operator (just like say RedTube.com came out of nowhere and became popular; if VeriSign had unlimited pricing power, they would be able to charge more for RedTube.com to renew their domain; and if they didn't renew it at the higher price, they could certainly find someone to pay a premium, or someone would certainly grab it to have it parked on pay-per-click, etc., taking it over).

Why would webhosts require it? The domain pointed to the server doesn't change the content. If some do introduce such policy, other webhosts will profit by not doing it.

They wouldn't.

You're right that any such webhosting requirement, in and of itself, could likely be easily circumvented - there are lots of webhosts to choose from.

However, the other part of my comment regarding credit card / payment processors potentially requiring adult sites to be in .XXX would be very difficult to get around, since there are relatively few payment processors for adult.

As to why payment processors would even consider such a requirement - from their perspective, requiring adult sites to operate in .XXX may seem less risky to process for - and, more to the point, better PR; touting their efforts in preventing underage access and protecting the children.

Ron

Well, VISA and payments processors are not the law. They set a policy. If I want to show my cock on internet, they can't stop it.

Besides that 99.9% of the porn on internet today are not paysites but freesites/piracy. With .xxx that will become 99.99% + a ton of gateways to .xxx extentions. How are they going to "stop" that?
Only a mandatory .xxx for all adult, free or paysites, by international law can change it. And that's not going to happen.

They're not the law, but good luck trying to run a paysite when no one will process for it.

Paysites advertise on / promote through tubes / free sites - so while much of the content may be on non-.XXX domains, paysites themselves would need to be on a .XXX domain - I understand your point that paysites could simply register most any crappy, .XXX domain and simply use that as a landing, but that makes branding far more difficult.

Before getting over-confident about the rights one presumes to have, read up on "local community standards". There's far less freedom, even in the USA, than many realize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

And furthermore, realize that the nexus of jurisdiction can be determined not only by where someone operates from, but also by where the visitor is accessing from. Read up on the legal action by the state of Kentucky to shut down / seizing domains of gambling sites that operated outside of Kentucky.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...main-names.ars

http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/0...eave-standing/
(an update to the first link ... ~2 years later and it looks as if the case is still ongoing!)

Ron

If I can upload photos of my cock to a fileshare host and get free hosting + 10 bucks per 1000 download, how is any payment processor going to stop that? They are not preventing it today and .xxx will only create more of those "business models".

Restricting access doesn't mean there will be less supply on black and shady markets. The distribution models will change and there will always be someone else there ready to serve and process as long there are money (and legal).

I'm against .xxx too but my main point is, that instead of opposing with what they can do to harm us, we should point out the flaws in their arguments. .xxx will not create less distribution, hide it from children or more control. Labeling a site would do the same job, so this is not about domain extension but money...

Well, Im not sure if you mean out of the state or out of the country. Unless we are talking about international things like terrorism, copyright or child abuse, I doubt anyone in Europe or whatever is responsible for a foreigner visiting an adult website in another country if it's illegal in his homeland. .xxx doesn't ban pornography :)

I hate to say it but .xxx or something like it is going to eventually happen. It may not be this time or even the next, but someday down the line, something is going to happen like this.

Sry.. they busy cleaning tube sites

I think those cards are already dealt.

Friends,

This is not a done deal for ICM. They still have another round to play and can well loose it they can't show sponsored community support and GAC is still opposed to the idea.

Post your comments now. They are more important than ever.

agreed...

The industry will be over by the time this is settled.

So I guess everybody on gfy is OK with XXX? I mean, why else would I find this on page 6?
:disgust

I submitted my comments earlier today.

For those that haven't submitted comments yet, please note that it's important for you structure your remarks such that they are relevant to the current draft of the proposal from ICM.

It's all well and good to voice opposition to the sTLD, but if you want the ICANN board to take notice of the comments, it's crucial that you tie the comments to the proposal in a clear and obvious way.

Mine will be in, in the next couple of days :thumbsup

This is scary. I hope I am misinterpreting this, lest our opinions will not be accepted unless we agree to something that helps ICM, but hurts us.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=984906

Mr Cummings have you spoke to the ceos of the big companies about writing? They all should be and would have more weight than a bunch of mom pop sites and webmasters.

I believe, like the last time, that FSC is on top of that.
Besides the "weight" of the big hitters, we also DO INDEED desperately need the numbers of individuals involved with ALL sites, and we need ALL webmasters THIS time!

Thanks, Tony 299!

We're all gonna die someday as well, but that too is something I'd rather not have happen anytime soon :2 cents:

Then FSC is failing, CEO's of every major porn company should been at that icann meeting. But who knows maybe they really do support .xxx and think its a way to get rid of alot of the moms and pops.Make it the way it used to be before the net.

Important, VERY important, IMHO!