Other than the obvious answer that both incumbent TLD operators and trademark interests want to prevent the creation of new TLDs, I have never understood why ICANN hasn't set up mechanistic rules for the creation of TLDs. Mechanistic rules -- setting simple qualifications and otherwise getting out of the way -- would take ICANN out of the withering line of fire that its continuing insistence on its semantic omniscience subjects it to.

Another thing I never understood -- except for the obvious explanation that insiders used their power to move it forward -- was why of all the many pending and mooted applications for new TLDs, ICANN found .xxs most worthy for full consideration.

These two choices: first insisting on its power to regulate the content (instead of just the bona fides and technical seriousness) of applicants and second taking up .xxx less slowly than so many other applicants, came home to roost this week. And ICANN voted .xxx down by 9-5.

I have no brief for .xxx -- it would be low on my personal list of useful additions to the root -- but unlike some I make no great claims for deference to my views. I care much more about ICANN's life-long inability to get its procedures right. No, strike that, make it life-long unwillingness to craft neutral procedures at all.

Susan Crawford's thoughtful dissent, Why I Voted For XXX, explains the issues better than I can. I am sure, given ICANN's circle-the-wagons culture that she will be pilloried for it by the staff and others, both to her face and behind her back. Watch for the personal attacks to begin any minute now.