Tag Archives: GAC

What’s Wrong With .XXX?

The adult industry is still vehemently opposed to the .XXX sTLD with Diane Duke, the Free Speech Coalition Executive Director, writing that “ICM and Stuart Lawley want to use your money to perpetuate the myth that child pornography is connected to the adult entertainment industry.””But the industry already knows that the myth is not true. In fact, we know it’s…BULLSHIT!!!!”In part one of what is described as a five-part series on the AVN website, Duke is critical of ICM’s decision, promised ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC), to “donate $10 per year per registration to fund IFFOR’s policy development activities and to provide financial support for the work of online safety organizations, child pornography hotlines, and to sponsor the development of tools and technology to promote child safety and fight child pornography.”Duke writes “There’s a problem with ICM’s math, however. This is the same ten dollars per year per registration that ICM’s Stuart Lawley described — and continues to describe — quite differently to the adult entertainment community. As recently as July, 2010, for example, he posted the following statement to XBIZ.NET:”
“IFFOR will be tasked with setting the policies for .XXX. Details can be found on www.iffor.org. This is an independent entity from ICM and will be funded through a contract with ICM to the tune of $10 per registration per year. We estimate now that we will launch with between 300,000-500,000 names so that would translate to $3-$5 million a year for IFFOR.”With annual operating costs of approximately $500,000 per year, substantial monies will be available for IFFOR to donate, sponsor and fund whatever initiatives it feels appropriate. We envisage a range of initiatives being considered, including but not limited to: health and safety of Adult Industry workers, legal challenges facing the industry such as 2257, piracy, counterfeiting, onerous legislation etc, labeling initiatives, combating child abuse, parental awareness etc.”Duke believes that “ICM has insinuated that the adult entertainment community needs ICM to save the Internet from the child predators that are the adult entertainment community. This is not only an insult to our industry, it also is a lie. The adult entertainment industry has always supported efforts to improve child Internet safety, especially greater parental involvement in filtering and supervising their children’s use of the Internet.””The adult entertainment industry also knows full well that child pornographers and those who peddle adult material to minors would simply avoid .XXX and IFFOR, just as they now avoid the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and its members, and what currently is the legitimate adult entertainment industry. If ICM truly wants to help children, it would develop a .KIDS TLD, which it actually dropped it years ago in favor of the presumably more profitable scheme to leech off the adult entertainment industry,” writes Duke.She also says “Stuart Lawley promised ICANN that IFFOR will use $10 per registration for child protection. He promised the adult entertainment community that the very same money will be used to protect the industry. But it is NOT his money; it is your money, and it is a fraction of the amount ICM will try to suck out of you — all in the name of ‘child protection.'”The full article by Diane Duke, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director, is available from:
news.avn.com/articles/What-s-Wrong-With-XXX-427850.html

ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs

ICANN logo[news release] During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. Continue reading ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs

ICANN’s Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs

[news release] During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process.Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts – Kunstberg, Brussels.The purpose of the meeting is to:1. Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) advice and the current implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook.
2. Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either:
1. arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or
2. for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process.The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will also be made available.Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. Details of the agenda and logistics will be made available closer to the meeting.BackgroundICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) plays a key role within ICANN, particularly with regard to providing advice to the Board on public policy issues. The GAC has been actively involved in the discussions on the introduction of new gTLDs and has regularly provided advice to the ICANN Board on a number of issues, which the Board has sought to address. The most recent GAC communiqué [PDF, 45 KB] identified a number of issues associated with the introduction of new gTLDs that the GAC considers outstanding, or unresolved to the GAC’s satisfaction.The new gTLD program has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN community. In October 2007, following more than 18 months of community discussions, the GNSO formally completed its policy development work on new gTLDS and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations. In June 2008, ICANN’s Board of Directors adopted the policy recommendations and directed staff to commence work on an implementation plan.The first version of the Applicant Guidebook was posted for public comment on 1 October 2008, and since that time a further four versions have followed with the most recent, the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook published on 10 November 2010. Each version has been revised as a result of comments received via the respective public comment fora. The ICANN meeting in Cartagena provided the platform for discussion of the latest version, and provided an opportunity for the Board to hear first hand, the community’s views.This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm

ICANNS GAC expectations

The GAC has more than a hundred members, all government representatives for countries from Argentina to Yemen. GAC chair Janis Klarklins, from Latvia, is his country’s ambassador to France. As a further measure of the GAC’s importance within ICANN, it is worth noting that Klarklins’ predecessor as GAC chair was none other than current ICANN CEO Paul Twomey.

What are your expectations for the Paris meeting with at least three important topics: the JPA, IDNs and new extensions?
You’ve just mentioned the three main issues and I expect we’ll make progress on all three of them. For the GAC there are two questions of particular importance. There’s the IDN ccTLD fast track procedure, which we hope we’ll be able to endorse and send to the board for further consideration. There’s also the report from the president’s strategy committee on possible avenues of evolution for ICANN. As usual we’ll also be discussing the IPv4/IPv6 transition and what the governments’ role should be in promoting IPv6 and rolling out IPv6.

To read the article further : http://www.domainesinfo.fr/english/210/an-interview-with-gac-chairman-janis-klarklins.php