Below are the comments I posted to ICANN for the current public comment period regarding the proposal by ICM Registry to establish .XXX as a ‘sponsored’ Top Level Domain (sTLD). It is an issue of great importance to the adult entertainment industry, and the online sector of the industry, in particular.
To Whom It May Concern:
I renew my objection to the .XXX sTLD proposal from ICM Registry, and strongly urge ICANN to reject the proposal, once and for all. Failing a full and final rejection, I believe it is incumbent upon ICANN to require ICM to provide a more reasonable definition of the “Sponsored Community” with respect to this proposed sTLD, and for ICANN to establish solid, objective measures by which applicants can demonstrate that they have the support of any given Sponsored Community for future sTLD proposals.
Among my many reasons for opposing ICM’s proposal is the absurdly circular definition of “Sponsored Community” provided in Appendix S of the Registry Agreement. Quoting from that definition in pertinent part, it states that the sTLD “will serve individuals, business, entities, and organizations that: (i) have determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial, and (ii) have voluntarily agreed to comply with all International Foundation for Online Responsibility (“IFFOR”) Policies and Best Practices Guidelines, as published from time to time on the IFFOR web site.”
Setting aside for the moment that the “Policies and Best Practices” referenced in the definition do not exist (opening the question of precisely how one goes about ‘agreeing’ to policies and best practices that have not been stated), this definition is a transparent end-run around the fact that ICM’s proposal has never enjoyed the level of support from members of the global adult entertainment industry that ICM’s representatives have previously asserted.
By redefining the sponsoring community such that it consists only of those individuals who already approve of the sTLD despite the complete lack of specifics concerning its eventual nature, ICM seeks to dismiss and render moot the opinions of those within the adult entertainment industry who oppose the measure. The fundamental flaw in the underpinning reasoning of this new definition of the Sponsored Community is that ALL adult industry stakeholders will be affected by the establishment of the .XXX sTLD, not just those who approve of the measure.
I appreciate the difficulty of ICANN’s position in evaluating this proposal, as I’m fairly certain that ICANN has never been asked to consider another sTLD over which there was such deep-seated disagreement within the industry that the sTLD in question pertained to. For example, I’m fairly certain that when .mobi was proposed, ICANN did not receive hundreds of complaints and strong objections from distributors of mobile content and others with a potential stake in the fate of .mobi.
I can also understand why ICM has pushed so hard for the adoption of this proposal, as the company has no doubt invested a great deal of time and money in this effort – and obviously stands to make a great deal more money in return on that investment, should the proposal move forward.
What I cannot fathom, however, is why ICANN should accept as valid a definition of the Sponsored Community offered by ICM that amounts to “that portion of the affected business community which agrees with us, whatever the size of that portion.” Such a definition is so profoundly meaningless it would be quite humorous to me, were I not convinced that the sTLD it would facilitate has potentially disastrous implications for our industry.
I’m well aware of the fact that ICM considers the question of whether it has the support of adult industry stakeholders to be a closed issue, and I sympathize with ICANN’s desire to put a stop to the seemingly endless consideration and reconsideration of this proposed sTLD. If the operative definition of the Sponsored Community for .XXX is to be the one in the current draft of Appendix S of the Registry Agreement, however, ICANN ought to at least require ICM to define the “Policies and Best Practices” that the Sponsored Community has (by ICM’s own definition) apparently already “agreed” to.
ICANN should also establish objective criteria for demonstrating the support of the affected business sector at issue in any sTLD proposal. While I doubt that ICANN will ever encounter another sTLD that is as controversial within the relevant industry as .XXX has been, setting clear criteria for what constitutes enough support from the industry at issue could go a long way toward forestalling years-long debates over whether a future sTLD applicant has demonstrated sufficient support from its sponsoring community/business sector.
Should the proposed Registry Agreement go forward as written, in my opinion it will represent nothing less than the ICANN board ignoring the community that properly represents the ‘s’ in the proposed .XXX sTLD. Accepting the Agreement with its current definitions and verbiage serves the interest of no one save ICM and the third-party registrars who stand to profit from selling the domains.
Quentin Boyer
Director of Public Relations
Pink Visual
www.pinkvisual.com
flickr
|
