BTW, my view on Sadowsky's plea against .xxx is that it was very well
elaborated, a good script to use in analysing several of Icann's
processes, but the .xxx case as it stands now is not one of them -- he
missed the central specific points defended very explicitly by Rita,
Crocker and others.

I am still with the impression that, deeply inside, many of the people
who fought against it did so for moral reasons covered by "objective"
logical arguments.

--c.a.

On 03/21/2011 05:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in messy ways - love it or leave it.
> 
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DeeDee Halleck
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx
> 
> http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic
> read the comments too!
> dd
> 
> 
> --
> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
> 
>