Re: [alac] Gov objection to a proposed TLD
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, butthe DOC didn't reverse it. kids.us was created instead, which has turned out to be a huge failure, but that's another story.