About the ICM and IRP outcome, I was almost sure that nothing was
going to get resolved at the Nairobi meeting, the Board will keep
trying to kick the ball ad aeternum and any decision will be made (if
ever made) not in one of the open meetings under the scrutiny of a
public.

Like many from the technical community, I also believe that .xxx or
.sex is a bad idea, (see RFC3675:
https://www3.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt), well to be totally frank I
also believe the entire gTLD circus is a bad idea but that is not the
point.

But, regardless of what the string is or represents, the Board screwed
up several years ago and keeps screwing up today by circumventing or
not following the rules that ICANN itself established to conduct its
business.

Just for a moment lets forget about .xxx and make it an abstract
string, not associated with what kind of websites, services, hosts,
servers, you name it will be created under such TLD. From this point
of view there was a established process several years ago for the
introduction of a limited proof-of-concept sponsored (and this is the
key word in this particular case) new TLDs.

I'm not quite sure or convinced that ICM really qualified to be one of
the few sponsored new TLDs, but as the IRP found the Board screwed up
by not following the process or rejecting the application on a solid
base of facts and arguments.

Given that the IRP is not binding, I find very difficult for ICM to
obtain what they want without going to court, something that will
probably represent a legal fight for a large numbers of years and then
porn would be already distributed in holographic nano-memories that
you will swallow and the TLD will have no value anymore.

On the other hand, I'm 100% against any categorization, tagging,
labeling, name it, of TLDs, strictly based on the content associated
with the services provided by the names created under it.

For free speech and other issues it is a double edged sword.

Again lets abstract from whatever content is associated with .xxx, but
is pretty clear that the string is closely associated with a
particular content, then by creating such TLD we will be enabling
filtering, logging, etc, for a particular type of content, again no
matter what the string/content is, the issue at hand is the precedent
we set.

If we create .xxx, soon with the new gTLD program, as we've heard from
interested parties, other similar strings associated with content will
follow.

Also by rejecting the string due to the associated content ICANN is
assuming a bigger role as  net-police/regulator, thing I don't like
either, and IMHO is out of its mandate and mission.

There is also another important issue in regard to these strings
apparently associated with content. It is very difficult to avoid
somebody creating a name such us www.ncuc.xxx and point that FQDN
(Fully Qualified Domain Name)  to the NCUC server which has nothing to
do with XXX content, but will start showing on search engines as a
site associated with XXX content, then our friends (not that it is not
already there for other reasons) running the BIG firewalls will add
the IP addresses of the server to their black list.

There are countless examples I can come up with, www.child.xxx for
example  (www.child.com is Parents magazine), etc.

Anyway, after all these, I'd be very interested -if ever ICANN
approves the TLD- to see if IANA gets the delegation in place, given
that IANA still today is under 100% control of the USG.

Cheers
Jorge



On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My view of these resolutions
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/12/4478733.html