>>> [log in to unmask] 4/3/2007 10:06 AM >>> >The way to get out of these horrible debates is to have a >new process, one which is focued entirely on technical merits >(meeting some threshhold), and in which ICANN has none or >at most minimal input/veto on semantics But people, including Vittorio especially, seem not to realize that by vetoing .xxx that is precisely what ICANN and the world's governments (led by the USA) have decided NOT to do. You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult webmasters. .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. (Taubmann). And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like inside the book." Is that free expression? Imagine someone saying, "you can say whatever you like in a newspaper, but you can't put up bumper stickers or distribute buttons with locator information that indicates that this is a [conservative/socialist/nationalist/your-favorite-ideology-label-here] newspaper." The same argument was used by IPR interests in their attempt to claim sweeping property rights over any mention of tbeir brand. "You can talk about our company and its products all you like, you just can't use a label or domain name that tells people you are doing so." These efforts were deliberate attempts to suppress critical commentary on their brands. Vittorio's notion that the Board sat down and carefully debated whether .xxx met their criteria is laughable. This was the 4th vote. .xxx met their criteria long initially. Then the criteria changed after the USG objected. ICM Registry then worked hard to meet the new criteria, which involved more stringest contractual conditions meant to regulate content. It met those GAC-imposed criteria. Then the board (some members) complained about the content regulation. No, this is about "finding an excuse to kill something" not about anything else.