Re: [alac] Gov objection to a proposed TLD

[Jean Armour Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sure, I know  .kids is second level. My point is that pressure from 
the US DOC didn't move ICANN the last time and it shouldn't this 
time. I think it would be a terrible precedent to set.
The ICANN board approved  triple x to go into negotiations with the 
staff- this after months and years of study and commentary, knowing 
that it would be controversial. Roberto's right-- does triple x 
fulfill the new TLD requirements or not. If yes, move it into the 
root. If not, how did it get that far in the first place? It's lose 
-lose at this late point. Personally I support it, because I support 
the notion of many many TLDs and think that all of them should be 
approved. I am aware that others on the list disagree with me. :-)

At 3:01 PM +0800 8/22/05, hongxue@xxxxxxxxxxxx recently said:
>  > I am reminded of the outrage at the time .kids was turned down, but
> >  the DOC didn't reverse it. kids.us was created instead, which has
> >  turned out to be a huge failure, but that's another story.
>
> kids.us is at second-level, not a TLD. It's indeed another story.
>
> Hong