ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] Gov objection to a proposed TLD

  • To: hongxue@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [alac] Gov objection to a proposed TLD
  • From: Jean Armour Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:27:56 -0400

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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy