The Bogus Nature of ICM Registry's Self-Definition of Its so-called Sponsored-Community

["Tom Hymes" <tomhymes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN Board,

 

Something perhaps to consider before you vote. 

 

Despite ICM Registry's claims, a self identified group of responsible
webmasters who wish to work together to implement best practices in a
specific, easily identifiable virtual marketplace, while providing a forum
for interaction and cooperation with other community stakeholders affected
by the adult-content industry does not actually exist. It is easy to see why
ICM says it exists, because the definition so neatly apes their application,
but that is exactly the point - no such self-identifiable group existed
before ICM created it out of whole cloth for the purposes of the
application, and I contend that it is impossible for ICM to even remotely
prove that most or maybe even any of the supporters they claim to have are
even aware of that definition or their role within it. And that certainly
holds for the 70,000 or so domains pre-registered with ICM. 

 

ICM claims that a self-defined sponsored community is acceptable for these
applications, and mentions .museum and .travel as examples of other sTLDs
that have been approved, but those self-definitions do not compare in any
way to ICM's for .XXX. .museum and .travel are not collections of
"responsible" museums or travel agents, but groups that define actual
industries that existed before their applications were even considered. 

 

ICM presumes to claim that a self-defined subset the adult online industry
actually exists and should be recognized, and that is not only false, but it
is a very dangerous precedent for the Board, especially since the operating
definition of "responsibility" is so open to interpretation. 

 

Some observers claim that the STLD application process will be permanently
harmed if ICANN does not approve this application, because no one will again
take the chance to risk so much money only to be turned away, but I assert
the opposite. If you approve this application with its bogus self-serving
definition of a community that defines a previously non-existent sub-set of
an industry that actually does exist, you risk opening up a Pandora's Box of
equally non-existent (and dangerously subjective) definitions of communities
that you will be hard-pressed to deny. 

 

Does it not make sense that an applicant should at least have to prove that
the self-defined sponsored community actually existed before it came along,
and should not ICANN more seriously consider applications that would create
sub-set industries? And should ICANN not look very closely at any
self-definition that divides an industry by malleable criteria such as being
responsible? Believe me, it is obvious to all opponent, as it should be to
you, how completely disingenuous and ridiculous the ICM self-definition
actually is. 

 

Unfortunately, in this .XXX process you have a special problem in that so
many previous ICM-claimed "supporters" have since made public their
opposition, So I ask, according to ICANN, are people who changed their minds
deemed to be responsible or not by the Board? According to your process,
only the sponsored community opinions are to be considered during the
comment periods. Does that mean that anyone who opposes is by definition not
to be considered? If you go by ICM's self-definition that would have to be
your conclusion, but of course, if you were really thinking this through you
would have to acknowledge how damaging that selective consideration could be
moving forward.

 

It's your call. 

 

Tom Hymes