>> ... I expect the board and staff really >> really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like "who >> did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX >> application and what did you say?" and "why did you vote against .XXX >> when they followed the same rules as the TLDs you voted for?" > >The first assumes that a beneficiary should exist that is distinct >from the applicant-sponsor.
On the contrary. Since it is clear that all of the other sTLDs have failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal communities, why should a similar lack of support for .XXX make any difference? >The second assumes the principle liability that exists is specific to >a single application. > >While possible, this fails to place a controversy in its complete >context, and assumes an implied pattern of conduct by an agency of >government at a point in time reflects a continuous primary issue of >that agency. Heck no. I expect that were a case to bring documents to light, they would show that what ICANN said to the US government was at odds with what they were saying in public. I know none of us would find that at all surprising, but we're not a judge looking at the contracts. R's, John