CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and GOVERNANCE: NO to IFORR

[Ed Pressman <ed.pressman@xxxxxxxxx>]

TO: xxx-revised-icm-agreement
SUBJECT: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and GOVERNANCE: NO to IFORR 
FR: Ed Pressman
DATE: Wednesday, 22 September 2010
 
While I was glad to see that ICANN had agreed to move forward with the .xxx 
TLD, 
I must register my dissatisfaction and serious concern with what has transpired 
since that decision.
 
When the discussion of a .xxx TLD began several years ago, ICANN was clearly 
reticent to move forward with ICM’s proposed plan to establish the .xxx TLD. 
From the perspective of this interested observer, it appeared that ICANN was 
vexed by the very serious governance issues raised by the prospect of a .xxx 
TLD. Taking into consideration, it seemed, the implications for registry 
governance, law enforcement on the state, federal and international levels, 
regulatory regimes across international boundaries, human trafficking concerns, 
child exploitation issues, sexual and reproductive health issues and ICANN’s 
own 
institutional interests, ICANN took the prudent decision not to rush into such 
murky regulatory terrain without any prospect of clarity on the horizon for any 
of the aforementioned concerns.
 
Now, several years later, while having been compelled by an adverse arbitration 
decision to initiate the vast undertaking know as .xxx TLD, ICANN appears to be 
rushing into an agreement to allow IFORR, an organization clearly cobbled 
together by ICM, to deal with these difficult issues despite the fact that such 
actions were not stipulated in the arbitration decision. To be frank, IFORR is 
clearly a pass-through organization and considering the prima facieconflict of 
interest between ICM, as the TLD registrar, and IFORR (in which ICM will decide 
the board members and has the only permanent board seat) as the governance 
body, 
ICANN appears to be punting any serious effort to deal with the myriad 
governance issues associated with the .xxx TLD.
 
Setting aside, for the moment, the readily apparent conflict of interest 
involved in ICM’s de factooperation of an organization meant to govern the .xxx 
TLD registry it itself will run, a close read of the articles of establishment 
of IFORR leads me to believe that very little actual thought has been put into 
any of the serious governance issues engendered in the .xxx TLD by the IFORR 
founders. With respect, the notion that ICANN would hand oversight of these 
serious issues lock, stock and barrel to an organization founded and run by 
ICM, 
the organization that stands to benefit the most financially from the the .xxx 
TLD, seems utterly irresponsible and fool-hearty.
 
Given the implications for ICANN’s hard-won international reputation if the 
.xxx 
TLD is poorly governed, it would certainly behoove ICANN to slow the process of 
choosing a governance organization down and consider other options rather than 
to charge ahead and allow a seriously conflicted organization to be stood up in 
haste to govern the .xxx TLD.  Again, the governance issues related to the 
operation of the .xxx TLD are very, very complex, as ICANN well knows. 

 
Until the governance issues involved in this decision are properly and fully 
considered, including exactly which TLDs should be .xxx or .com/.org, and what 
regulatory regimes have been, or should be established to govern even seemingly 
mundane issues such as model consent, ICANN and ICM really must slow this 
process down and consider alternatives to simply foisting over control of both 
the registry and the governance of the .xxx TLD to a single organization, 
albeit 
one with the appearance of two separate entities. 

 
As I stated earlier, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an interested 
party in this decision. For the past year, I have been associated with an 
effort 
to develop an application that will objectively and scientifically deal with 
many, if not all, of the major governance issues involved in this matter. My 
associate and I have spent considerable time investigating the jurisprudence 
involved in the regulatory and governance issues related to a potential .xxx 
TLD. The technological solution we have formulated is certain to be amenable 
and 
beneficial to not just ICANN, but also ICM as the TLD registrar, the adult 
entertainment industry as participants, and other interested parties such as 
international NGOs, state, federal and international law enforcement officials 
and regulatory bodies. 

 
Much of the controversy and potential litigation that is sure to follow a rush 
to establish a flimsy governance body for the .xxx TLD will be satisfactorily 
eliminated for most, if not all concerned parties, by the technology. As such, 
I 
urge ICANN to reconsider this hasty process, and invite parties such as my 
associate and myself to provide more detailed explanation of alternative 
solutions for the governance issues before issuing a decision in this matter.
 
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.