<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
Hi all
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to make a comment only on this paragraph:<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Recall that this is a particular case of a TLD application made under very charged and political circumstances. I was at the 2011 San Francisco meeting where it was up for delegation
and saw the street protests up-close. And while ICANN likes to say that it doesn't regulate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontract based on content, any controversy about .XXX at the time concerned nothing EXCEPT content. As a result I'm not surprised if the registry had
to make extraordinary promises that have proven to be unsustainable in the dozen years that have passed.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
and specifically on the assertion “nothing EXCEPT content”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was no longer on the Board when .xxx was finally delegated, but remember well the discussions when it was first presented to the Board, and rejected. My position of denying delegation was based exclusively on the consideration that the proposers failed
to fulfil one of the necessary requirements of an sTLD, that is the consensus of the community it aimed at serving.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is, to me, of the paramount importance, because the rationale for having a new round was to allow TLDs that were targeting a specific and well identified community. The problem with the .xxx proposal was that they were unable to show support of the
adult industry: they did indeed have some support, but there were large parts who where against (for reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This has absolutely nothing to do with contents. This said, Evan might be right in saying that in 2011 the situation might have been different. My personal opinion, having followed things only from the distance after my departure from the Board, is that
the delegation was done under pressure to avoid potential lawsuits - again not related to “content”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This said, on the specific matter on ALAC’s position on the renewal, I do not have a definite opinion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Roberto</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>