| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Board Votes .xxx Down (9-5) -- Crawford Dissents
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Thank you Susan Crawford.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Much as I appreciate and understand Susan Crawford's views, I feel obliged to point out that there was a long discussion that went on about .xxx and it should be the case that the other Board members' positions are given equal weight.
I went to the trouble of breaking up the transcript of the .xxx discussion into who said what, with hyperlinks, and posted it about an hour after the Board meeting ended.
My personal views are all over the Net, but even when I disagree with people's views, I have the courtesy to include them.
How are you ever supposed to get anywhere if you ignore or discount the other views made in public?
As for the Machiavellian claim that Susan will find herself at the end of attacks, find them and raise them, but don't for god's sake state factually that something in the future is going to happen when there isn't the slightest evidence that it will.
Can't we all be a bit more grown-up about this?
The full .xxx discussion can be found at: http://blog.icann.org/?p=82 [icann.org]
Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Michael, I understand the argument for a "free market" TLD process - but why do the advocates of that concept go to the wall over it regarding what is arguably the poster-child for World's Dumbest Domain Idea? It seems so tangled, as in "Yes, we have a restrictive process now, but we shouldn't, but because we want an open process, but within the restrictive process, we should approve the World's Dumbest Domain Idea, which will just happen to make those behind it a boatload of money because the process is restrictive now, but it shouldn't be restrictive ..."
Umm, what? Who benefits? (in many senses of that phrase ...)
And if there's an open process, who gets: .xxx .porn .sex .erotica .adult .pron .p0rn .prn
and so on ...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
