The Statement By One Of The ICANN Board Members Indicates That .XXX Is A Done Deal

by

There were a LOT of articles published on the ICANN’s boards decision on .XXX yesterday and the opinions ranges from those who took it as a rejection of .XXX by ICANN to those who saw it as simply a delay.

I reviewed the transcript of the board vote again today and found that they key to ICANN ultimate plans for this domain may have been spelled out in the comments of a board member George Sadowsky, who abstained, check it out:

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT NOW CONCERNING YOUR ABSTENTIONS? (asked by the ICANN Board)

GEORGE SADOWSKY: THANK YOU, PETER.

I FEEL AMBIVALENT ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT CONFLATES A NUMBER OF THINGS. I UNDERSTAND WHY THE CONFLATION OCCURS, BUT I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION TO ENTER INTO A REGISTRY AGREEMENT, BUT I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE GAC, ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THAT CONSULTATION AND THEREFORE I SUPPORT THAT PART OF THE RESOLUTION.

So this statement to me is pretty clear even though the Boards Resolution is not.

The Board apparently voted yesterday to APPROVE .XXX which Mr. Sadowsky was against and therefore abstained.

Why did he abstained instead of voting no?

Because this board member was in favor of the proposal to send it to the GAC so he was partially in favor and partially against.

I think this comment which most disregarded was the most telling of the Board Meeting and Ultimately means good news for .XXX

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which sold around 70K domain to Godaddy.com in December 2015 and now owns around 8K domain names . Michael was also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest.

Comments

  2. Meyer says

    BigLieSociety,

    For someone who has a lot to say, your link to DOC,gov tells me nothing.
    If you have a point, please make it.

  3. TheBigLieSociety says

    ://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm
    ://reboot.FCC.gov

    People who prefer Vote-Based Systems like to have ONE.Domain.ONE.Vote

    Wonder if the 8,000,000 .ORG owners would Vote to Endorse/Back/Facilitate the .XXX infrastructure ?

    What happened to the Internet Governance concept of “ONE.Domain.ONE.Vote” ?

  4. andrew allemann says

    I’m not reading that much into his statement. Seems that he’s saying before passing a resolution that says ICANN “intends” to enter into a registry agreement, he’d prefer to just deal with the GAC first, then pass a resolution.

    Then again, most of this is impossible to tell. I guessed that .xxx would be full steam ahead; clearly it’s not.

  5. TheBigLieSociety says

    “I guessed that .xxx would be full steam ahead; clearly it’s not.”
    ===

    I guessed that .xxx would be full steam ahead; clearly it’s not….to those who are not aware of what is going on…

    January 0 to 15
    .VEGAS
    .CES
    .AVN

  6. landon white says

    @ Meyer

    BigLieSociety,

    For someone who has a lot to say, your link to DOC,gov tells me nothing.
    If you have a point, please make it.
    ——————————————–

    His Links are all to Virus Websites and spam ping tracking
    Don’t Click em!

    and he is Nuttier then a Xmas Fruit Cake

  7. MHB says

    Andrew

    Don’t feel bad

    If I had the time, I would have posted the same, quite shocked that .XXX didn’t just get the approval.

    You really need to go to an ICANN meeting to see the way it operates, SLOWLY SLOWLY

  8. blah says

    maybe the commenter is saying some other pornography industry related extensions are coming soon? but they are not necessarily .xxx? they are from very well-known, usa-based sponsors?

    (are there 8M .org domain name owners, or 8M .org domain names? what if millions of domains under a new tld fall under one owner?)

    maybe this icann board member is thinking the sooner they have an approved _process_ for ushering in these new sex/gambling/tech flavoured extensions, the faster it will be when the time comes, and the sooner icann will start earning more money?

    maybe he’s thinking the .xxx debate is an opportunity to approve a _process_ while not making any committment toward entering a registry agreement (with .xxx)?

    maybe he wants to _separate_ the time needed to come to agreement on a process (which is quite boring and might be painfully slow) from the time needed to come to agreement on approving a particular tld (which could be quite quick if it’s being lodged by the “right” applicant)?

  9. TheBigLieSociety says

    “(are there 8M .org domain name owners, or 8M .org domain names? what if millions of domains under a new tld fall under one owner?)”
    ===

    Good point!!

    “ONE.Domain.ONE.Vote” ?

    Who voted to pay Lynn St. Amour the CEO of the ISOC $16,000,000 per year [$2 per Domain?]

    Why is the ISOC paid $16,000,000 again ? For What ? No Registry, servers, etc. Nothing

  10. blah says

    well, how many candidates were there for taking over .org? isoc must have had some serious competition from numerous qualified applicants. i’m sure they were selected for very good reasons.

    isoc is “not-for-profit” so they must all be working for peanuts, including the CEO, to benefit the internet and and society. that’s what not-for-profit means, right?

  12. blah says

    their website says 10 of the 18 icann board members are also isoc members.

    pretty neat that they can initially fund a new commercial registry with _member donations_ (or maybe it was from whatever “moves” they made to increase their surplus).

    do the members get any of the reg fees that people pay to register .org domains? do they get a dividend? (the icann members do, as icann gets paid a portion of every reg fee.)

    of course, legally, isoc is not the registrar. as soon as they won the bid, they formed another entity, pir, to take on that liability.

    and who would have guessed, it too is “not-for-profit”.

    pir doesn’t actually operate the registry. but i’m sure they could do it themselves, if they wanted to, given their technical expertise.

    instead they contract the work offshore to countries with favourable tax laws and currency exchange rates, to a for-profit company: afilias.

    what’s the percentage of “cybersquatting” domains in the .org registry? has that been published anywhere?
    given that pir’s managment team includes a trademark attorney, i’m sure they are proactive to prevent infringing registrations, so it must be low.

  13. TheBigLieSociety says

    “pir doesn’t actually operate the registry. but i’m sure they could do it themselves, if they wanted to, given their technical expertise.”
    ===

    “technical expertise” ? PIR ?
    Two lawyers ? David Maher and Katherine UDRP Kleinman ?
    “technical expertise” ? PIR ?

  14. TheBigLieSociety says

    “of course, legally, isoc is not the registrar. as soon as they won the bid, they formed another entity, pir, to take on that liability.”
    ====

    8+ million .ORG registrations at $6+ per year results in $56,000,000 to PIR

    At least $16,000,000 is “donated” to ISOC by PIR because they are nice people?

    $40,000,000 goes where ? offshore ? Ireland ? Switzerland ?

    How much to support WikeLeaks ?
    ://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706

  15. TheBigLieSociety says

    $40,000,000 goes where ? offshore ? Ireland ? Switzerland ?

    How much to support Leaks ? .ORG
    ://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706
    ====

    .ORG was (along with .COM and .NET) part of the original Work Product funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation

    “Conversion” now has it benefiting a small group of insiders with Opaque Finances

    Some Non-Profit Shell Companies provide cover