Hey Seth,

I just tried to leave a comment on your piece on the Guardian - but it doesn't allow it. Bit odd, may raise it with Charles Arthur.

Anyway, my quick point is: I agree with you on this Core Neutral campaign, although I completely disagreed with your .xxx piece whenever it was, a few months ago. I think .xxx had a lot of good reasons to be approved and that it was a shame it *wasn't* approved.

But .xxx is the past. This new gTLD round should prove much more interesting.

BTW I should also point out that ICANN has a new media advisor - Jason Keenan - and if you ever do a piece that covers ICANN or the DNS, you really should give him a call. He'll be helpful and friendly.

All the best,

Kieren

The problem about an discussion about new extensions is that .XXX toitally messes up the discussion due to moral and financially issues. The moral folks are lobbying against it and they have some strong opinions. The .XXX supporters are mostly folks who are looking to cash in on the extension. Some people see it as one big cash grap.
So any discussion about the true value of new extensions really needs to exclude .XXX becuase its a minefield of strong opinions.

Dave,

The .xxx debate is effectively done and dusted. Unless of course ICM Registry applies for it again this time around.

One of the main reasons .xxx was turned down last time was because it had to be a "sponsored" domain - i.e. have a definable group of people for its use. When the adult industry produced a lot of people saying they *didn't* want .xxx, then it was questioned whether .xxx could be approved as a sponsored TLD.

In the next round, it will be generic TLDs and that part of the debate will not exist.

Kieren