Please reject the ill-defined .XXX sTLD proposal

[quentinb@xxxxxxxxx]

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