NaughtyBits

← Governance

External Body — Research and Sourcing

Companion to naughtybits-core.md §9 · v0.1 · findings verified 2026-06-13

This document records the research behind the named external body in core §9: who the candidates are, why each was chosen or rejected against the three §9 requirements, and the questions that are still open. The core names the body; this shows the work. A §9 that named organizations without showing why would be the assertion-without-evidence the research mandate (§4) forbids.

Method: fan-out web search across five angles, primary-source fetch, three-vote adversarial verification (a claim survives only on ≥2 confirmations). 23 sources fetched, 100 claims extracted, 25 verified, 2 killed. Confidence levels below are the verifier's, not the author's.

The three §9 requirements, and what fills each

§9 demands a body that (1) grades project admission against a rubric, (2) holds a non-suppressible harm/whistleblower channel, and (3) is composed of affected persons with real power plus a financially-disinterested party — and that the entity cannot dissolve, override, or starve. No single existing organization satisfies all three. The body is therefore composed, layer by layer.

Requirement 3 — affected persons + disinterested expert (high confidence)

  • Sekswerk Expertise (NL) — the anchor. Its membership already combines both halves §9 demands in one roster: named active and former sex workers (Irina Hornstra; Foxxy Angel; Roos Schippers, 35 years active; Niki, jurist & sex worker) alongside financially-disinterested experts (Prof. dr. Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Utrecht/Rutgers; Marjan Wijers, jurist and human-rights PhD researcher, Essex). Networked into Aidsfonds–Soa Aids NL, PROUD, de Rode Draad, ICRSE, and the Prostitutie Informatie Centrum. Source: https://sekswerkexpertise.nl/leden/ — self-published roster, current as of the live 2026 page.
  • ESWA (European Sex Workers' Rights Alliance, formerly ICRSE; Amsterdam) — binding charter rule that ≥80% of its board be sex workers, "with an aspiration to achieve 100%." Real decision power; the 80% rule is itself a non-capturability feature worth copying. Sources: https://www.eswalliance.org/about_eswa, https://www.eswalliance.org/leadership.
  • PROUD (Dutch sex workers' union) — member-governed by (ex-)sex workers, with a non-voting advisory committee of scientists, academics, and activists. Source: https://wijzijnproud.nl/en/. Verified limit: PROUD does not represent all current/former NL sex workers; do not overstate it as the sole voice (the broader claim was refuted 1–2).

Requirement 2 — non-suppressible channel (high confidence)

  • Huis voor Klokkenluiders (Dutch Whistleblowers Authority) — passes the non-suppressibility test by construction. A statutory independent administrative body (zelfstandig bestuursorgaan) under the Dutch Whistleblower Protection Act, state-funded and answerable only to the Minister of the Interior; no single company can fund, appoint, or starve it. Investigates both the reported wrongdoing and retaliation against the reporter; confidential and free. Source: https://www.huisvoorklokkenluiders.nl/english. Caveat: its findings are non-binding — it cannot order reinstatement, compensation, or penalties. It protects the channel structurally but does not itself enforce remedies; binding remedies must live in the NaughtyBits charter.
  • Ugly Mugs NL (built by Soa Aids NL + PROUD, launched 2022; ~15,000 reports in its first year) — the domain-specific operational model for sex-worker incident reporting and alerts. Source: https://www.uglymugs.nl/en/about-ugly-mugs-nl/what-is-ugly-mugs-nl.
  • Offlimits (formerly EOKM; ANBI nonprofit, INHOPE member) — structural model only. Its domain is CSAM/abuse, not consenting-adult sexuality, so it is a channel-host reference, not an affected-persons body. (Its sub-brands are merging under one name as of January 2026.) Source: https://meldpunt.offlimits.nl/en/over-ons.

Requirement 1 — grading (high confidence — this is the gap)

No off-the-shelf body grades a commercial sexuality platform. Verified:

Therefore the grading committee must be purpose-built — constituted from Sekswerk Expertise members plus a disinterested university sexology ethicist — not outsourced. This is the one §9 function with no existing home.

Non-capturable structure — the wrapper (high confidence on form; the funding guarantee was refuted)

The Meta Oversight Board is the leading structural template: an independent trust owns the operating entity (separating funder from decision-maker); the company appoints only the initial members, after which the board self-perpetuates; content decisions are binding by charter. Sources: https://www.oversightboard.com/governance/, https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/oversight-board-structure/.

Refuted (0–3): the claim that Meta's funding is irrevocable and cannot be reclaimed. In reality Meta funds only a couple of years at a time and may cut funding after 2028; its policy recommendations (vs. individual case decisions) are non-binding. Lesson for NaughtyBits: copy the form (independent stichting owns the operating entity, fixed terms, binding-by-charter), but harden the funding lock into a genuinely multi-year escrow/endowment that the entity cannot decline to renew. The Meta model's real-world independence is contested; adopt it with this correction, not wholesale.

Public / community participation — the added seat (model identified; no binding precedent found)

Model: a sortition-style community advisory panel / mini-public drawn from sex-worker, kink/BDSM, and LGBTQ+ communities, with charter-guaranteed seats and the power to refer items into the channel — not a token consultee. Sources on the method: https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/what, OECD deliberative-democracy principles, community-advisory-board literature.

Honest limit: the research found no confirmed real-world precedent of a sortition mini-public with binding power embedded in commercial-platform oversight. The principle is sound; the specific instantiation is novel. NaughtyBits would be early here, and §9 should say so rather than imply a settled practice.

What FAILS the non-suppressibility test (named, to avoid)

Any panel the entity alone funds, appoints, and can quietly drop — including a bespoke company-paid advisory board with no trust lock; or ARC-GS / an MREC engaged as a paid advisor (no binding grading mandate). These are "the word without the thing" (incident §2).

Open questions — not research, but decisions and outreach

These could not be closed by research; they are obligations owed before the body in core §9 is more than a design. They are not tracked here — the live, extendable task list lives in ../TASKS.md. This section records only why each is open; its status is the tracker's job.

  1. Will they take it? None of Sekswerk Expertise, ESWA, or PROUD publishes a policy on formal/paid external-review engagements with a commercial platform. Whether they would accept, and on what conflict-of-interest and independence terms, is unknown until asked.
  2. What legal vehicle makes the lock real? Which Dutch construction (a stichting with an irrevocable endowment, or escrowed multi-year funding) genuinely makes the body non-dissolvable and non-defundable — and how is a binding admission-grading charter enforced against the entity that created it?
  3. Who grades? Which specific university sexology ethicist or non-WMO institutional committee (Utrecht/Rutgers or Amsterdam UMC orbit) is willing and qualified to design and apply an adult-sexuality admission rubric, given no existing IRB covers this?
  4. Is the community seat real anywhere? What is the most credible precedent for a sortition/mini-public with binding referral power in commercial oversight, since none was confirmed?

Time-sensitive notes

  • Vanwesenbeeck is now emeritus, though still listed by Sekswerk Expertise.
  • ESWA was running 2026 board recruitment at time of research.
  • Offlimits' three sub-brands are merging under one name as of January 2026.
  • Several Meta structural/funding facts rest on secondary legal/press sources, not the org's own pages.