Re: Now it's .xxx

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

Bob Allisat:
>>  Also suggest you look for PRIOR USE
>>  of .XXX and .SEX. You may find your
>>  humble asses in court should you
>>  barrel on as you have in the case
>>  of .WEB and .ART (both of which are
>>  the rightful claim f other groups).

Bryan Trussler:
>I don't dispute that these may be claimed by some other group, but
>"rightful" hardly enters into the equation. I sincerely hope that
>whichever agency carries out this expansion of the TLD system does not
>permit these cybersquatters from interfering with progress. Of course they
>knew what risk they were taking in straying outside the sanctioned limits
>-- the risk is that they will stay marginalised. That is exactly what has
>become of them and what should become of them in the future. Their
>marginalisation is proof that the system is working and proof of the
>world's level of commitment to preserving the unity of the Net. There must
>be no precedent set now in these cases -- they must be deliberately and
>systematically ignored. Otherwise, the IANA or whatever successor body
>takes over Internet governance will be in the position of rubberstamping
>whatever corny new gtld some numbered company in a filing cabinet
>someplace decides to create and foist on us.

I think there's a significant difference between .web and .xxx, assuming
that the stories provided by the claimed owners are true. The claimed owner
of .web requested, from IANA, the right to create the .web TLD. IANA agreed,
and even collected money from him for this purpose. By contrast, the claimed
owner of .xxx never had IANA approval and in fact (I think) didn't attempt
to assert this claim until after the IAHC process had begun. I'm sure I'll
be corrected if I'm wrong.

I don't know what should be done about .web, but I don't think that a
precedent set in that case would in any way open the door for .xxx or for
any gTLD created even later.