Regarding ICM's .XXX proposal and the IRP Declaration

[quentinb@xxxxxxxxx]

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


-- 
Q Boyer
TopBucks.com | PinkVisual.com | PlugInFeeds.com | 2men1podcast.com
Phone: 520.290.0910 Ext. 227
ICQ: 256418652

This email is a transactional or relationship email message. You are receiving 
this email in order to receive information about goods or services, including 
product updates or upgrades that you are entitled to receive under the terms of 
a transaction that you previously agreed to enter into with TopBucks, 
PlugInFeeds, WildWestCash and PinkVisual.