All hell... OK, you want one example... here's one for you...
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....mi=all&q=asacp
Quote from Joan in 2007:
"Mr. Balkam and FOSI are serious about protecting children, and we respect that," Irvine wrote. "However, ASACP does not agree that ICANN’s rejection of .XXX represents a failure to protect children online, because we do not believe that a .XXX sTLD would have further enhanced the online adult entertainment industry’s ongoing voluntary efforts to protect children."
So.... Joan around 2005 wrote a letter to ICANN "applauding" ICM Registry for its efforts (do the research if you haven't seen this widely circulated letter), and justified that "applause" by, as I understand it, claiming ASACP basically had to support child protection efforts. Which would mean .XXX had some kind of child protection element to it, right? Then in 2007 after .XXX was defeated in the first round, she wrote the above (gee, I never liked .XXX anyway!), then today well... we all know where she stands today.
Now Baddog, the question is... when YOU are presented with evidence like this, what will YOU do? Will you acknowledge it, or try to find some excuse for Joan that somehow explains why she has more positions on one issue than a presidential candidate?
You know I like you, but I don't understand why you do this on GFY on a regular and consistent basis... it's mind boggling, to say the least.