Breaking: IFFOR’s Tax Return: Only $208K In Revenue From .XXX; Are 90% Of All .XXX Registration Defensive?

The 2011 Tax return for IFFOR has been filed and our friend George Kirikos of Leap.com found it (pdf)

So IFFOR’s tax return is important for two reasons.

First IFFOR return shows us how how much money the non-profit, which is suppose to receive $10 for each .XXX registration, actually received from ICM the operator of the .XXX TLD and how IFFOR spent the money.

Second the return is important to see how the money ICM the registry operator of the .XXX TLD  paid to IFFOR matches up to ICM reported number of .XXX domain name registrations.

The short answer is it doesn’t

So as for IFFOR, tax return for 2011 shows revenue of just $208,000.

It also shows “deferred revenue” of $326,000.

It shows compensation of officers and directors of IFFOR in the amount of  $130,000, or roughly 65% of collected revenue;  another $100,000 in travel which again we would assume is mostly, if not fully for officers and directors or IFFOR,  plus another $37K in conference expenses.

There is also another $60K in a Board of Directors Stipend, and Policy Council Stipend of $37K.

As far as following its mission statement, only $20,000 was spent on “content labeling” which is of course is one of the main missions and purpose of the entire organization.

As far directors go Joan Irvine who was the Director received $130K in compensation, Clyde Beattie received $32K and Sebastien Bachollet received $26K.

It should be noted that Ms. Irvine didn’t even start working for IFFOR until May 2, 2011 so that $130K was only for 8 months of work which is $195,000 annualized and .XXX didn’t even go live until December 2011.

In all IFFOR the organization had a loss in 2011 of $333,000.

However, and quite important IFFOR is reporting their taxes on an accrual basis not a cash basis.

What that means is that they should be reporting the income they earned it in 2011 in 2011 even if they didn’t receive the cash, and the same for expenses.

So IFFOR should have reported and therefore we can only assume they did in fact report, all of the revenue they earned and expected to receive in 2011 on their  2011 return, even if they money wasn’t going to be paid until 2012.

So we have to disregard this “deferred income” entry and just call it like the returns says, that IFFOR only got $208,000 from 106,000+ registrations of .XXX domain names.

Now as for the for what the these numbers mean as far as the .XXX registry is concerned?

My understanding is that of the $62 wholesale cost for each .XXX domain registration, ICM gets $50, IFFOR gets $10 and ICANN gets $2.

According to the report ICM filed with ICANN, as of December 2011, there were 106,549 .XXX domain name registered, not including the 80,000 10 year blocks sold to trademark holders.

That should have generated some $1,006,000 for IFFOR.

However IFFOR says the only got $208,000.

It is showing on its return deferred income of $328,000 as a liability not an asset but we think this is unimportant as IFFOR elected to pay on the accrual rather than cash basis, but more on that later.

Of the $1,006,000 that ICM collected ($10 per registration not including blocks, ICM only paid the non-profit IFFOR, $208,000 or 20% of what it collected in the name of IFFOR

Even if it owes IFFOR another $326K (“deferred income”)  then they ICM paid IFFOR just over 50% of the money they collected for IFFOR.

What happened to the rest of the money?

The question is why IFFOR hasn’t said a peep (publicly)  about being underpaid $800K from ICM nor have they filed a lawsuit for the underpayment.

There is a thought out there that the $10 per .XXX registration ONLY gets paid to IFFOR for those domains which the registrant has elected to be a member of adult community.

Obviously those who registered a defensive .XXX registration are not electing to become a member of the adult community.

However that’s not the way ICM application to ICANN reads nor how the .XXX extension has been marketed.

If community use is how ICM based their payment to IFFOR, then it would mean that only 20,800 of the 106,000 initial .XXX registrations  are owned by members of the adult community, which are domainers and adult website owners).

Stuart Lawley CEO of ICM, the company that operates the .XXX registry has said that there are some 250,000 .XXX registrations, which include those 80,000 ten year blocks sold to trademark holders.

However if only 20,000 of those domains are actually in use by members of the adult community that would mean less than 10% of all .XXX domain names are owned by the members of the community, meaning that more than 90% of all .XXX registrations are defensive or owned not by members of the adult community.

If the $326,00 showing from IFFOR as being “deferred income” is for $10 fees paid to ICM but not yet paid in 2011 to IFFOR that would still mean that 50% of all active registration are not members of the adult community or defensive or taking into account the 10 year blocks then 50,000 out of 250,000 registrations are registered by members of the adult community and 200,000 are registered defensively but then wouldn’t follow accounting principal for accrual based taxpayers

Either way IFFOR tax return raises a LOT of questions.

Remember .XXX is not a new gTLD or a TLD but a sTLD, approved by ICANN to represent the adult community.

Under ICM proposal to operate the .XXX registry IFFOR was always suppose to get $10 of each registration.

When and how did that change?

Why didn’t IFFOR sue for the money it was owed and not paid?

Considering IFFOR was part of ICM application to ICANN to operate the .XXX registry what will ICANN say about this discrepancy in payment vs. funding?

With the funding of ICM to IFFOR based on IFFOR tax return is ICM in compliance with its contract with ICANN?

Where does it say that ICM only has to pay IFFOR $10 a registration for those registered by members of the adult community?

Most importantly as far as .XXX TLD is concerned are 90% of the 250K registration cited by Lawley or 75%  (difference based on deferred income amount showing on IFFOR’s return) .XXX registrations made by members not in the adult community and therefore defensive registration?

and if so, how can .XXX be said to represent the adult community

 

Comments

  1. says

    Here’s a fun game to play. On page 6, Section C, “Disclosure”, on line 18 it says they made the Form 990 available on their own website. Try to find it. :) According to Google searches:

    site:iffor.org irs
    site:iffor.org 990

    there are no matches! And I can’t find it, browsing manually…..

  2. michellek says

    For the past 7 years, I have watched representatives of the adult industry tell ICANN, GAC, Dept. Of Commerce, and anyone else who would listen that .xxx has nothing to do with the adult industry. Now, you are shocked to find out that .xxx has nothing to do with the adult industry. Is this a joke? If you want to know how .xxx is being used by the adult industry, just look at xxx.xxx. All of the sites are there–on a single page. (But about half of those are actually run by ICM).

  3. says

    George

    of course not to mention that I asked Mr. Beattie for a copy of the return and/or the financial and he declined saying they would be released only as required by law.

    If the returns were posted on IFFOR site, he could have just directed me to it

  4. says

    I just checked the .XXX monthly report at ICANN’s website for the end of November 2011, and it showed total domains of only 1310. So, even if they were paid $10 for each of those 1310 domains, that’d only be $13,100. Thus, the December 2011 figure from the ICANN monthly reports of 106,549 as Mike pointed out above *has* to be the relevant figure, to get anywhere close to the claimed revenue numbers for IFFOR. One can’t explain it from the 80,000 10-year blocked domains, as that would amount to $800,000.

  5. says

    Here’s where things get more interesting. I looked up the Form 990 statements of ASACP (Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection) for 2009, 2010, and 2011. You can read them at:

    http://www.loffs.com/images/icann/asacp-2009-form990.pdf
    http://www.loffs.com/images/icann/asacp-2010-form990.pdf
    http://www.loffs.com/images/icann/asacp-2011-form990.pdf

    In 2009, ASACP’s total revenues were $457,912 and Joan Irvine was paid $77,605 in “reportable compensation” and $21,956 of “other compensation from the organization and related organizations” for a total of $99,561. As CEO, she reported 60 hours of work per week. In that year, the president, treasurer, and 2 directors all were paid $0. Only $13,470 was spent on travel, and $14,541 for conferences.

    In 2010, ASACP’s total revenues were $392,901 and Joan Irvine was paid $91,250 total for 60 hours per week as CEO. Once again, the President, VP, Officer, Sec/Treasurer were all paid $0. $12,514 was paid for travel, and $20,387 for conferences.

    In 2011, ASACP’s total revenues were $381,113, and Joan Irvine was paid $35,417, presumably for the 4 months January through April (before she jumped to IFFOR) for 60 hours/week. Annualized, that would be $106,251. Once again, the CEO, VP, Officer and SEC/Treasurer all worked for free, and were paid $0. There was travel of $21,344 and conferences/tradeshows amounted to $44,791.

    Obvious questions:

    (1) Why is Joan Irvine suddenly worth $195,000/yr (annualized) at IFFOR, compared to earnings of roughly $100K/yr ($91,250 low in 2010, $99,561 in 2009, and $106,251 (annualized) for the first 4 months of 2011) at ASACP?? Indeed, the IFFOR form 990 says her average amount of work dropped to 40 hours/week, compared to the 60 hours/week at ASACP. So, roughly double the compensation, and 33% less hours worked.

    (2) How is it ASACP can find directors/officers willing to work for free, but IFFOR pays them substantial amounts?

    Remember, these are all non-profits, and if you compared the level of revenues, they seem comparable (i.e. if you include the “deferred” revenues from IFFOR’s statement; if you don’t include those, then IFFOR is even smaller).

  6. michellek says

    I noticed that GeorgeK has made several posts about this on the adult boards, but no one has responded or shown any interest. Adult publications haven’t picked it up. Adult bloggers are not talking about it. That’s because .xxx has nothing to do with adult.

    You did the math from a domainer’s perspective. Let me show you the math from the Adult perspective. 90% of registrations are defensive–ICM’s shakedown of colleges, universities amd corporations. Of the remaining 20,000 domains, 75% were purchased by domainers who were willing to sign statements claiming to be part of the adult industry, although they are not and do not intend to be, lying to ICANN so that they can shake down the adult industry. So really, about 5000 domains were purchased by adult companies.

  7. says

    Andrew

    Also just for the record my company registered a few hundred .XXX domains meaning that I have been forced to contribute $x,xxx to IFFOR in the two years and have an interest well beyond a blogger on the matter as to what this organization has raised and how it has spent the funds

  8. Andrew Allemann says

    I understand, Michael. I just figured this could all be cleared up pretty easily by talking to Stuart. Or if it can’t, it would be good to at least get his comment first. I understand where you are coming from.

  9. michellek says

    I don’t understand what questions need to be answered. The Adult Industry told the GAC that they didn’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry told ICANN that they didn’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry told the US Department of Commerce that they didn’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry spoke with their wallets when they refused to buy .xxx domains because they didn’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry filed an IRP against ICANN/ICM because they did’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry filed an anti-trust suit against ICANN/ICM because they didn’t support .xxx. The Adult Industry has successfully implemented one of the most successful boycotts in history because they didn’t support .xxx.

    Now, you intellectual giants are demanding answers from ICM/IFFOR because you suspect that the Adult Industry may not support .xxx.

  10. Paul says

    @ “Michelle”

    Have you any connection to disgruntled porn star Amanda36C? The gal who has been spamming chat rooms and blogs since the the dawn of .XXX. You sound identical.

    First, your hostility isn’t appreciated. Going around insulting people isn’t going to win you much respect.

    Second, the adult industry did not protest .XXX, file suit, file an anti-trust suit, etc.. Porn giant Manwin did. The same porn giant whose founder is currently in jail due to tax evasion, by the way. Manwin launched a campaign against ICM Reg and .XXX, not the industry. Manwin doesn’t speak for the adult industry and neither do you. In fact, ICM Reg filed a suit against Manwin for all the actions you inaccurately attribute to the industry.

    It’s so easy to throw out a bunch of made-up stats and reflect a company in a negative light. You use fuzzy math, then sit back and act like you just cracked the da vinci code. I’m sorry we’re not all “intellectual giants” like you, but you don’t speak for the industry and your numbers are rubbish. 90% defensive regs? Give me a break.

    I have no problem with folks like Mr. Berkens demanding answers based on actual data, but those who go around making blanket statements, arrogantly speaking for the entire adult industry, while using fuzzy match, throwing out contrieved numbers, have an obvious agenda to push.

    Mr. Berkens, I’m not going to speak for ICM Reg or the IFFOR. They should speak for themselves. As you note, you have a vested interest in .XXX, having purchased several hundred domains through your company. Any owner of several hundred names, based on the premium ICM Reg is charging, should have his concerns answered. Heck, the owner of one .XXX domain should have his concerns answered.

    If those in charge of .XXX refuse to address your concerns, by all means, use the power of the internet and social media to force them to comply. But I would be weary of those who have an agenda of their own.

    Personally, I would email key personnel at ICM Reg et al. Keep communications in writing, so it’s not “he said, she said”. I’ve spoken with a couple of key people at ICM Reg. They seemed pretty open. If not blunt.

  11. says

    The adult industry doesn’t support .XXX and never did.. The biggest porn company on the planet now is Manwin and is sueing .XXX owner ICM. What does that mean? It means what the hell happened during talks with ICANN, that suddenly gave them a change of heart, to finally give in after a decade of resistance and give the green light to .xxx, when everyone was against it??

    People, businesses, colleges and companies that have no association to the pornographic industry shouldn’t be paying a pornographic tax. ICANN should have required in order for .XXX to be approved, all domains not involved in the pornography business would be blocked free of charge. But instead, from what the writing mentions above, it appears the majority of the .XXX domain owners are they themselves non pornographers to begin with.

    This nonsense has gone on long enough. Its time for ICANN and .XXX to be investigated already.

  12. michellek says

    @Paul Go back and look at the history of correspondence between the FSC and ICANN. The Adult Industry has been fighting .xxx LONG BEFORE MANWIN EVEN EXISTED.

  13. michellek says

    @Paul I just went back and checked. The Adult Industry showed up at the 2006 ICANN meeting in Lisbon. They testified in front of the ICANN Board and submitted letters of opposition from Larry Flynt and other CEOs. They met with ICANN staff and GAC representatives. This meeting marks the beginning of their aggressive campaign against .xxx and it was 3 years BEFORE Manwin was formed. (And they attended EVERY subsequent meeting.)

    I know that it’s really easy to blame .xxx’s failure on Manwin–and those of you who put your faith in this scheme need someone to blame. Clearly, the adult bloggers who Stuart hired are taking this approach because scapegoating is quick and simple, requiring little thought. But the reality is that Stuart should have gotten adult support prior to establishing .xxx rather than establishing .xxx over adult objections and then attempt to garner their support.

  14. amanda36c says

    @ “Paul” I don’t know Michellek (though perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad idea!). ;) First of all, let me assure you that I do not go around spamming chatrooms and blogs, as you claim. Careful “Paul”, that’s quite a slanderous accusation and completely false. If you can produce just one example of where/when/how I ever spammed a chatroom or blog, I will challenge you in court on that one, because it never happened and never would. Why the need to lie, “Paul”? What purpose does it serve you to slander me?

    By the way, “Paul”, everyone in the industry that has not been hand-picked by ICM Registry to operate their dot xxx site is against it. Just because someone takes advantage of a free service offered does not mean they are behind it. You might be surprised to know that Michellek is 100% right. They do not have support of the adult industry at all. I have been in it now for coming up to 16 years. You’d think someone like me would be one of the first to jump on board to claim my dot xxx under the grandfather rule. amanda36c dot com has been in existance (and mine) since 2003 and I’ve used the name since 1997.

    For anyone wondering why such an aggressive stance is taken by the fine folks at (*insert company name here*), the answer could be right under your noses http://amanda36c.wordpress.com/icm-registrywebpower-inc/ Why a self-proclaimed ‘domainer’ would work so hard, for so many months (or has it been ‘years’ now?) to come here so often to defend ICM Registry is beyond my comprehension. But then again, this is the internet and we can be whoever we want to be really, can’t we? I could indeed toss around some assumptions and speculation of my own but what would be the point?

  15. michellek says

    @Paul Just as I predicted. Because we are having this conversation, one of Stuart’s bloggers just published a post in which he claims that Manwin is a sinking ship. The minute that we start talking about concrete numbers and cold, hard facts, Lawley’s blogger’s try to deflect attention onto some sensational rumor. It is precisely this type of childish and unprofessional behavior that has gotten Stuart where he is. But, regardless of the games that Stuart and his minions play, they cannot change the numbers. They cannot change the number of registrations. Of defensive registrations. They cannot change the rankings of the .xxx sites. Numbers don’t lie.

  16. Paul says

    @ Michelle

    “Clearly, the adult bloggers who Stuart hired are taking this approach because scapegoating is quick and simple, requiring little thought.” Exactly what Amanda36C would say. First, I know of no bloggers hired by ICM Reg. Complete speculation on your part. Second, how is Manwin being made a “scapegoat” when they’re the ones suing ICM Reg?! No one else is suing ICM Reg. So they are not a scapegoat. They are, in fact, the source of an ongoing campaign against ICM Reg and .XXX.

    Manwin was formed in 2007, not 2009 as your response implies. In 2006 there surely were some companies (not the entire “Adult Industry”) opposed .XXX. If you’re making a fortune with the status quo, of course you don’t want anything to change. Those companies are worried about competition on a new platform, not censorship. They are concerned about profit, not principle. Spamming, viruses, pop-ups, misdirection, all the BS that goes with mainstream porn, is big business to many less-than-ethical porn providers.

    ICM Reg has brought some much needed sanity to the adult market, which up to now has been the wild, wild west. Unless and until the adult industry can police itself, I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of having an adult specific extension. No one will convince me otherwise. Kids, for example, should not be exposed to porn, simply so certain scumbags can profit. Can .XXX sites be blocked by parents? Yes. That’s a good thing! But try telling that to Manwin, Flint, et al.

    But I will say this, if there are questions that ICM Reg needs to answer, they should. If there are questions Mr. Berkens demands answers to, for example, he should have them. ICM Reg should be more open in addressing any concerns which are raised. When your own customers, like Mr. Berkens, are demanding answers, you must ADDRESS them. So I am not opposed to folks questioning ICM Reg and their motives. What I am opposed to is a smear campaign. What I am opposed to is blanket statements, speculation, fuzzy math and folks with personal agendas.

    For full disclosure I own some .XXX domains, but I also own adult domains on other platforms. I am a fan of adult content. But I am also tired of the status quo. I want to see kids protected and viruses stopped. Adult content has really gotten out of hand. Google helped recently with their filtering software, but it’s still bad. If ICM Reg is sort of scam, I’d like to see them shut down. But it’s going to take more than an uninspired and monotonous smear campaign to do it. You’re going to need hard evidence and a formal investigation. Until both things happen, the concerns raised about ICM Reg and .XXX are, in my opinion, unfounded.

  17. Paul says

    @ Michelle

    You just lost all credibility on my eyes sister. Your last reply must have overlapped my own. You’re obviously paranoid to the max. You think because you and I are interacting here ICM Reg has bloggers taking action?! Are you insane? Get over yourself. I doubt anyone at ICM Reg is even aware of this blog, let alone would take action against it.

  18. michellek says

    @Paul There is a publication called xbiz that you might want to check out sometime. In addition to today’s interview with Stuart about this conversation, it will give you a nice introduction to the industry.

  19. B.ElZA. says

    @Paul, thanks for your unbiased clarification and clear information.
    @michellek, why do you provide the public with false and misleading information on this topic?

  20. Paul says

    @ Michelle

    I just read the story you mention. It appears Mr. Berkens is hunting down information and I applaud him for it. I hope gets answers to all the questions he raises and shares them on this site.

    Personally, I don’t find Lawley’s response, that ICM Reg can’t track defensive registrations, unreasonable. That’s why I balked at your “90% defensive registrations” claim. You don’t know any better than ICM Reg does.

    Further, you can’t determine defensive regs based on who applied to be part of the adult community and who did not. For example, we know some domainers bought .XXX domains. What reason would they have to join the adult community? They just want to resell their domains for a profit. Just like .Com domains. Others bought .XXX domains to develop down the road. Much like I did. I’m not obligated to develop my .XXX domains right now, but they cetainly are not defensive in nature.

    All one has to do is go to ICM Registry’s website to see there are MANY active .XXX sites currently online. Click on the “Who’s Using .XXX” link. If the entire adult community (which no one person/organization can speak for) rejected .XXX, why are there so many active .XXX domains?

    You can’t tell me the adult community rejected .XXX when there are plenty of .XXX sites currently in use! What you mean to say is Manwin, Flint, and those who did want want to change the status quo rejected .XXX. In fact, they did more than reject it. It looks to me like they went on a smear campaign.

    Clearly, many people in the adult community are making use of their .XXX domains. Otherwise, there would be no adult content attributed to .XXX. Last I read, there were some 20 million pages of adult content when ICM Reg took Search.xxx live.

    Might I suggest some of those currently running .XXX are new to the adult community. That would explain Manwin’s motivation, wouldn’t it? They don’t want new competition. They don’t want any competition. So if anyone has something to gain by “hiring bloggers”, creating a smear campaign and so on, it’s Manwin et al. Not ICM Reg.

  21. michellek says

    @Paul Point of clarification. The written comments were first submitted in 2004, 3 years prior to Manwin’s creation. FSC started testifying in person in 2006, one year prior to Manwin’s creation.

  22. Paul says

    @ Michelle

    I never claimed .XXX was a “stunning success”. But your claim of 90% defensive regs, the rejection of .XXX by the entire adult community, etc. is misleading at best.

    I don’t suggest anyone throw every single penny they have into any investment. Those who bought into .XXX, such as renowned domainer Frank Schilling, took a risk. Frank bought in before .XXX was even approved. Has that risk paid off for him with traffic and/or resales? I don’t know. Mr. Berkens must know Frank. Perhaps he can ask him. Then again, Mr. Schilling is probably in it for the long haul. But the fact that there IS adult content to be found on .XXX sites cannot be argued. This means there IS a level of support in the adult community.

    “Success” is a relative word, isn’t it? Can .XXX compete with .Com and companies like Manwin. Not yet. Not by a long shot, from what I read. But .Com has been around since 1985. Manwin has been around since 2007 and bought out many established sites to build it’s base. In contrast. XXX was launched in Dec 2011! So yes, I’d say .XXX has been pretty successful considering how long it’s been around.

    I find it interesting that we are now arguing degrees of success vs. .XXX’s right to exist.

    But whatever. Perhaps Mr. Berkens will uncover some great scandal. I’m not opposed to this. If there is dirt to be found, find it. I have a small interest in .XXX. If .XXX came crumbling down tomorrow I would not lose a minute’s sleep. But I don’t see it happening.

  23. michellek says

    Paul, did you read the article to which you are responding? Michael Berkins suggested the number, not I. Even if you can’t digest the article in its entirety, you might at least want to read the headline.

    Also, I wanted to mention that, in addition to reading xbiz, you’ll want to join the adult online community at its meeting place: gfy.com. Make sure to tell them how much the adult industry supports .xxx. (It’s your sure way in).

  24. says

    Actually, I found another document that is of interest.

    According to:

    http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/xxx-revised-icm-agreement-24aug10-en.htm
    http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf

    The “ICM & IFFOR Responsibilities and Obligations”, the very first obligation listed for ICM was:

    “1. Fund, in advance, on a non-recourse basis, the sum of $250,000.00 to cover IFFOR’s start-up costs. Pat (sic) to IFFOR $10.00 per Resolving name in the .XXX sTLD/Year.”

    The term is also listed directly in the “Sponsoring Organization Agreement” in paragraph 1.a:

    http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-sponsoring-organization-agreement-26jul10-en.pdf

    Where’s THAT $250K? in IFFOR’s annual return??

  25. Paul says

    @ Michelle

    What Mr. Berkens speculated is that “90 percent of all .XXX registrations are defensive or owned not by members of the adult community” and you agreed with him above. But let’s be fair. Let’s quote Stuart Lawley also…

    “ICM doesn’t characterize registrations as defensive or non-defensive; that is not something we, or anyone else, can really provide accurate information about,” Lawley said. “We can say that there were approximately 80,000 participants in our Sunrise programs and many of those took part in our Sunrise B trademark protections.

    “But, beyond that, we don’t have the opportunity to speak with each registrant and know what their motivation is for buying a domain name. They could buy a .XXX name and develop it into a live website, they could buy it and point it to one of their sites in another TLD, they could buy it and sell it. There are many reasons people buy .XXX domain names and only time will tell how they use them.”

    I don’t find that to be an unreasonable answer. Can someone explain to me how they thought .XXX would unfold? Did they expect Manwin etc. to pack up their .Com sites and move them over to .XXX? .XXX is an alternative platform for porn that is being used today. Sites are active. Content is available.

    If .XXX is doomed to fail, as seems to implied, why are Manwin’s panties in such a knot? Why do they care? Let .XXX die. Let is fade into oblivion. No… Manwin does not want competition. They implied as much in their lawsuit. You don’t sue people unless you fear them or have experienced damages. Manwin sued out of fear. Fear that .XXX could eventually take over. It’s stated in their own lawsuit. ICM, on the other hand, is now suing because they experienced damages.

  26. says

    I just noticed another thing. The $20,886 spent on “Content Labeling” is *exactly* 10% of the $208,860 in revenues. Is that a coincidence, or did we just reverse-engineer the terms of the content labeling agreement? i.e. the content labeling agreement might be $1/domain/yr x 20,886 domains = $20,886.

  27. amanda36c says

    @ “Paul” I don’t know Michellek (though perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad idea!). First of all, let me assure you that I do not go around spamming chatrooms and blogs, as you claim. Careful “Paul”, that’s quite a slanderous accusation and completely false. If you can produce just one example of where/when/how I ever spammed a chatroom or blog, I will challenge you in court on that one, because it never happened and never would. Why the need to lie, “Paul”? What purpose does it serve you to slander me?

    By the way, “Paul”, everyone in the industry that has not been hand-picked by ICM Registry to operate their dot xxx site is against it. Just because someone takes advantage of a free service offered does not mean they are behind it. You might be surprised to know that Michellek is 100% right. They do not have support of the adult industry at all. I have been in it now for coming up to 16 years. You’d think someone like me would be one of the first to jump on board to claim my dot xxx under the grandfather rule. amanda36c dot com has been in existance (and mine) since 2003 and I’ve used the name since 1997.

    For anyone wondering why such an aggressive stance is taken by the fine folks at (*insert company name here*), the answer could be right under your noses Just copy this exactly as is into Google “icm-registrywebpower-inc”. Why a self-proclaimed ‘domainer’ would work so hard, for so many months (or has it been ‘years’ now?) to come here so often to defend ICM Registry is beyond my comprehension. But then again, this is the internet and we can be whoever we want to be really, can’t we? I could indeed toss around some assumptions and speculation of my own but what would be the point?

  28. michellek says

    I was looking at renewal numbers this morning, and I believe that the defensive registration rate will actually be much worse after the first year’s renewals have been registered. One of the very few adult companies that actually used .xxx (AEBN) has clearly decided not to renew. If you go to aebn.xxx, you get a message that the site expired on Dec. 1st and is awaiting renewal or deletion. So, their site has not yet been counted in the 13000 drops. I bet the rate will be closed to 95% by the spring.

  29. Paul says

    @ Amanda

    What a shock. I speculate Michelle could be Amanda36C and magically here you are! What took you so long to jump in Amanda? Let me say it is my distinct displeasure to interact with you again.

    Haven’t we been down this road? Amanda you HAVE been going around trashing ICM/XXX from the start! You and I have argued on this very website. All anyone has to do is go back and look at comments to previous XXX stories. While I’ve limited my comments to this website, you have not. Are you telling me you’ve never written a bad word about ICM/XXX anywhere else? I’ve read your comments on other sites Amanda! You also trash ICM/XXX on your own site!

    Anyone can read your story. You wanted to buy your XXX domain. ICM Reg refused to give/sell it to you for some reason and now you hate them. We get it. As I’ve said before, that’s between you and them.

    But you know what gets really old? This constant BS about how I’m not Paul. I must be Stuart Lawley, hiding behind my computer monitor in my Jupiter Island mansion, aruging with some porn actress. Yes… I decided to park my Rolls Royce in the garage, jump online and debate a porn actress which I suspect no one would know existed, were it not for her personal mission to derail ICM/XXX. Get over yourself Amanda! I suspect Stuart Lawley and ICM could absolutely care less about you.

    Here’s a suggestion. If you want someone like myself to take your comments seriously, perhaps even support your cause, stop accusing me of being someone I’m not. It’s irritating if nothing else and it certainly won’t make me go away.

    Why have I defended ICM/XXX all this time? Because I don’t like bullies like Manwin. I don’t like people/companies which go around bashing others simply because they have a personal agenda.

    If you actually read my comments above, you will see that I support Mr. Berkens investigating ICM/XXX. I support any dirt being brought out into the light. Heck, I would support ICM/XXX being shut down if anything improper is taking place. But you need facts and a formal investigation. Not speculation, fuzzy math, etc..

    Let me say, this exchange is going to end VERY quickly, because I wasted so much time interacting with you before. I’m not going to do it again.

  30. amanda36c says

    @Paul

    Did you send the moneky in, with its sole purpose to insult me? I see no contributions to the topic, otherwise. Would be far more believable than the whopper you fabricated.

    The displeasure is mutual, ‘Paul’.

    Just as I have trashed ICM from the start, you have been equally as adament about protecting them – from the start. But you’re not them. You can’t be. Impossible. You claim to be “just a domainer … who owns some websites” and that has to be the truth. By the way, what websites do you own? What are their names? Or is that a big secret, just like the ones Stuart Lawley refused to name when he announced that he was in ‘gaming’. The similarities are amusing.

    I have not trashed ICM Registry, although any defender with an agenda as great as yours might see it that way. No sir, I was merely pointing out some facts about how I was refused my own dot xxx when everyone else under the grandfather rule was able to obtain theirs. I was tossed immediately into a last-minute makeshift ‘Performers Program’ and had my dot xxx held in an ‘escrow account’. I inquired about obtaining it under the Sunrise A plan but was refused it. Under the rules of ICANN, this isn’t supposed to happen. I had every right to obtain my dot xxx but was outright refused it.

    As for who you are – you’re someone behind a keyboard who has a lot of time on their hands and is the defender of ICM Registry. Are you on their payroll, at least? I can’t imagine anyone with this much motivation and time on their hands to go around defending companies like that out of the kindness of their big hearts. Sorry, I am not buying it.

    Honestly ‘Paul’, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you decide not to take my comments seriously. I’m not here for you (remember?), I’m only here to derail any attempt to make ICM Registry look good because I am a “disgruntled porn actress”. Funny, the only one acting here is you! Ta ta now ‘Paul’.

  31. says

    [quote]…But you need facts and a formal investigation. Not speculation, fuzzy math, etc…[/quote]

    uhh.. the only “fuzzy math” is the math used to file the financial report. Look it simply does not add up. Sure, folks are speculating how “defensive registrations” must somehow be the reason for the difference, but the original numbers simply do not add up. That needs definitely explaining.

    And why the personal attacks on the two people above that have a much different viewpoint than you? While mildly amusing at first, it definitely is not contributing anything of value to the conversation.

  32. Paul says

    @ Cartoonz

    I have absolutely no problem with your comment re: making ICM/XXX accountable for the numbers. No problem at all. The “fuzzy math” is claiming 90% of their registrations are defensive, etc.. That doesn’t add up either. But by all mean, attempt to get to the bottom of anything you, or others, think is wrong. I’m all for it.

    As for Amanda, she’s an idiot. I’m sorry, but it’s true. She’s convinced that I’m Stuart Lawley, or I work for ICM, and she believes if she just keeps saying it over and over and over again, that somehow it might come true. Read my comment to her. I explained why I’ve defended ICM/XXX. She doesn’t believe it. So really, why waste my time? Do you understand what I’m saying? Do you understand that I have better things to do with my time, than attempt to prove to someone I’m not who they think I am? I have every right to comment on a story of interest, but I’m not wasting another minute of my time on her.

    What websites, domains, businesses, investments I own are none of her business. I’m not Stuart Lawley, but I am a private person. I’m not obligated to identify myself, beyond my first name, simply because Amanda is arrogant (flattering herself thinking ICM cares what she has to say) and paranoid.

    Go back and read previous exchanges with her on past .XXX stories. It’s like trying to reason with a crazy person. It’s pointless. It’s like trying to tell some guy wearing a tinfoil hat, that there are no aliens attempting to read his thoughs via gamma rays. You feel me? So I’m done. This is my last comment on this story. Troll on Amanda. Troll on.

  33. says

    Paul

    I’m trying to figure out where the $208K figure came from

    To get there we can only deal with what we know since as you can see from this thread and another one on the topic a month before:

    http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/09/after-collecting-at-least-1-4-million-iffor-funded-by-xxx-finally-gives-2-grants-of-5k-each/

    no one from ICM or IFFOR choose to come on to give clarity to any of the numbers and I didn’t get any information about IFFOR’s numbers when I reached out out to IFFOR and ICM a few months ago knowing that these numbers were coming.

    So this is what we know

    There were 106K registrations of .XXX as of December 2o11, ICM report to ICANN

    IFFOR is suppose to get $10 for each registration.

    ICANN is suppose to get $2.

    10 blocks which ICM previously stated where in the 80,000 domain registration range are not included in the 106K domain figures

    So how do you get to $20K in funding?

    I got there with the thought that was expressed to me by someone who has some info on that matter that the reason IFFOR got $208K and not $1,060,000 is that they only get paid on those registrations that are made by those that are “members of the community” while not all registrations are made by those not members of the community since if you did not elect to become a member of the community your $100 .XXX domain will not resolve

    See wakeforest.xxx is owned by Wake Forest University

    Is a one year registration, not a block, and clearly does not resolve.

    Now I understand that Lawley is not in a position to look at each registration and determine what was the intention of the registrant was, it highly likely to me that if your going to spend $100 to register a domain that can never been used, by definition, the only logical conclusion is that they are 99% defensive.

    So since Lawley has said there are 250K .XXX domain names registered and only paying IFFOR on 20K domains again the logical conclusion is that the balance (the 80K blocks included) are defensive.

    If you just go by the 106K registration plus the 80K ten year blocks that means only 20K registration out of 200K registrations were made by members of the community, the other 90% of domains do not and cannot resolve and therefore highly likely to be defensive

    Paul

    What is your theory, how do you get 208K going to IFFOR?

  34. says

    I have a theory. Recall last month I wrote an article about “Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees”

    http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contracts_that_icann_oversees/

    and it mentions that ICM agrees to pay to IFFOR “the sum of US$10 per ***resolving*** registration in the .xxx sTLD per year.” What if, of the 100K+ domains, only 20,886 were considered to be “resolving”?

    However, as I pointed out in that CircleID article, the number of “resolving registrations” should be *much* higher than 20,886, because *all* of the defensively registered domains, both paid (e.g. Verizon.xxx) and unpaid (e.g. RodBeckstrom.xxx) are in the zone file, and actually *do* resolve to the ICM “reserved” page.

    If ICM Registry is defining a “resolving” name to be only those that use non-ICM nameservers (even though the ones that use ICM nameservers do technically “resolve”), then that could get us down to 20,886 domains. And if the content labeling provider is being paid $1/domain per *resolving* name too, as I theorized in an earlier comment (i.e. the content labeling expense was *exactly* 10% of IFFOR’s revenues), then that too would be consistent with the 20,886 domains.

    This theory seems consistent with Mike’s hypothesis that of the 250,000 claimed domains in the .XXX namespace, over 90% would be considered defensive (i.e. either paid defensive, or unpaid defensive).

    BTW, the question about the $250K I asked about earlier is very relevant given that, as Mike pointed out, the accounting was on an accrual basis. That should have been the very *first* payment that IFFOR received, paid in advance to fund their start-up costs. Where is it??

    If it turns out that all reserved names (paid and unpaid) that are technically “resolving”, albeit using ICM’s nameservers and to a “reserved” page, should have garnered payment to IFFOR of $10/each, ICM could be on the hook for several million dollars (let’s see if Manwin pursues that!). Think of all the “children” those millions could help, fulfilling IFFOR’s claimed mission of fighting sexual child abuse images! Why isn’t IFFOR going after those millions of dollars, if they are truly independent? A contract is a contract….

  35. says

    George

    VERIZON.XXX also appears to be not paid unless they paid for a ten year block and that is how .XXX is showing the whois:

    VERIZON.XXX
    Created On:01-Dec-2011 05:35:32 UTC
    Last Updated On:30-Jan-2012 21:24:19 UTC
    Expiration Date:01-Dec-2021 05:35:32 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:ICM Registry LLC (R3190-XXX)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:ICMFCON00000102
    Registrant Name:ICM Registry Reserved
    Registrant Organization:ICM Registry LLC
    Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 30129
    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Palm Beach Gardens
    Registrant State/Province:FL
    Registrant Postal Code:33420
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.8778093182
    Registrant Phone Ext.:0000
    Registrant FAX:+1.8778093183

  36. says

    Mike: I think that’s how the 10-year paid reserved/blocked names show up, e.g. Harvard.xxx and UConn.xxx have similar WHOIS. It’s hard to tell, though, because *unpaid* reserved names, e.g. RodBeckstrom.xxx or BarackObama.xxx, have similar WHOIS (2021 expiration date, same registrant ID, etc.). Note that “ICANN.xxx” doesn’t have nameservers, and doesn’t resolve, yet is “reserved.” IMHO, that’s how it should have been for all reserved names, paid or unpaid.

    This also calls into question the RegistrarStats.com statistics for .XXX. Eyeballing it, .XXX seems to have peaked at around 120,000 domains, according to their graphs and has dropped to 107,832 as of today. However, does that figure include paid/unpaid reserved names on ICM’s nameservers and resolving to a “reserved” page? I don’t have access to the .XXX zonefile, so can’t check.

    A name like softcoremodels.xxx, bought when .XXX launched, but now sitting in redemption grace period, is *not* in the zone file anymore, as far as I can tell. So, if tens of thousands of .xxx names that were bought and not renewed are dropping, we should have seen a much steeper drop in the RegistrarStats graph for .XXX. Unless unpaid reserved names (and other names on ICM’s nameservers) are boosting the figures, so that we can’t tell what the true numbers are, to back out the renewal rate.

    By May or June at the latest, though, we’ll be able to see the ICANN monthly registry reports (which lag by three months), to see exactly how many .XXX domains dropped (i.e. the domains bought at .xxx launch won’t get finally deleted until late February 2013, after going through auto-renew grace period and then redemption grace period, and finally pending delete).

Comment Policy:

TheDomains.com welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion