Opinion: Who Really Controls IFFOR?


ICM is pulling all the stings, and the rest are just figureheads. ICM will continue to do what it has been doing: looking out for the best interests of ICM alone. Not child protection. Not consumers. And certainly not the best interests of the adult entertainment community.

By Diane Duke

YNOT EUROPE – In his July 8, 2010, post on a popular adult industry forum, ICM Registry Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Stuart Lawley posted, “[The International Foundation for Online Responsibility] will be tasked with setting policies for dot-xxx. Details can be found on IFFOR.org. This is an independent entity from ICM and will be funded through contract with ICM to the tune of $10 per registration per year.”

Let’s explore how “independent” IFFOR is from ICM.

According to its bylaws, IFFOR’s board of directors will “have one or more members, the number thereof to be determined from time to time by resolution of the board of directors.” The bylaws go on to state, “The board of directors will initially consist of the person named as director in the certificate of incorporation or elected by the incorporator of the corporation.”

That person is Stuart Lawley.

The bylaws also ensure that ICM will have a standing position on the board, and that position cannot be revoked by a vote of the other board members. In addition the bylaws state the ICM representative is the ex officio chairman of the IFFOR board. Therefore, Stuart Lawley is chairman of the IFFOR board.

Moreover, there are no members from the adult entertainment industry on IFFOR’s board of directors.

It is important to understand that the IFFOR board is the governing body and the IFFOR Policy Council acts only in an advisory role. Numerous adult industry professionals have contacted me stating they had been approached by ICM about a position on the Policy Council, but none of those individuals accepted a position on the council. There are five “adult” seats on the nine-seat council. The initial impression was that the adult community would have a majority and therefore be a guiding force on the council.

According to the IFFOR bylaws (PDF), the Policy Council consists of:

  • One free expression expert selected by the free expression stakeholder group.
  • One child safety expert selected by the child advocacy stakeholder group.
  • One privacy and security expert selected by the privacy and security stakeholder group.
  • Five members from the domain owners stakeholder group — three selected by the stakeholder group and two selected by the IFFOR board.
  • One person appointed by ICM.

For the first year, the entire Policy Council will be selected by the IFFOR board, with Lawley as chairman. Thereafter, the constituency groups Lawley has chosen will choose their representatives. When asked why ICM would not allow the adult stakeholder community (i.e., the adult entertainment industry) to elect all five positions, Lawley replied that he did not want the “haters” to take over the board.

I’m guessing the “haters” Mr. Lawley referred to compose the majority of the adult industry — in other words, those opposed to the dot-xxx sponsored Top Level Domain. Interestingly enough, four of the five individuals representing the adult community are attorneys. I wonder if it was too difficult to find actual adult business owners to join IFFOR’s cause. I think it also important to mention that one of the members of the Policy Council — Robert Corn-Revere — is an attorney hired by ICM.

ICM wants the industry, and the world, to believe IFFOR is separate from ICM and the adult industry will have influence over IFFOR policy. But, according to IFFOR bylaws, after the Policy Council decides on a policy, the IFFOR board has veto power over that decision. And after the IFFOR board considers the policy, ICM has veto power over the IFFOR board’s decision.

Explain again, please, how the adult industry has any real influence whatsoever in this process? Keep in mind that all dot-xxx sites and sites they link to will be monitored by an automated third-party entity for compliance with regulations developed by IFFOR.

Let’s face it: ICM is pulling all the stings, and the rest are just figureheads. ICM will continue to do what it has been doing: looking out for the best interests of ICM alone. Not child protection. Not consumers. And certainly not the best interests of the adult entertainment community.

Diane Duke is the executive director of Free Speech Coalition, the nonprofit trade association for the adult entertainment industry in the U.S. Prior to assuming the reins at FSC in November 2006, Duke worked with other nonprofits for nearly three decades and served on the Human Rights Commission. She earned a master of business administration degree from the University of Oregon.

About the Author

admin

YNOT Admin wields his absolute power without mercy. When he's not busy banning spam comments to hell he enjoys petting bunnies and eating peanut butter. He recommends everyone try the YNOT Mail (ynotmail.com) email marketing platform and avoid giving their money to mainstream services that hate adult companies.

Visit Website

Comments are closed.