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