[139120] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Levine)
Sun Mar 27 14:36:28 2011
Date: 27 Mar 2011 18:35:17 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D8F2F2E.2020203@nic-naa.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> ... I expect the board and staff really
>> really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like "who
>> did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX
>> application and what did you say?" and "why did you vote against .XXX
>> when they followed the same rules as the TLDs you voted for?"
>
>The first assumes that a beneficiary should exist that is distinct
>from the applicant-sponsor.
On the contrary. Since it is clear that all of the other sTLDs have
failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal
communities, why should a similar lack of support for .XXX make any
difference?
>The second assumes the principle liability that exists is specific to
>a single application.
>
>While possible, this fails to place a controversy in its complete
>context, and assumes an implied pattern of conduct by an agency of
>government at a point in time reflects a continuous primary issue of
>that agency.
Heck no. I expect that were a case to bring documents to light, they
would show that what ICANN said to the US government was at odds with
what they were saying in public. I know none of us would find that at
all surprising, but we're not a judge looking at the contracts.
R's,
John
