Hi there NCUC'rs:

Below are a couple sample letters that people can use to contact ICANN 
Board members and GAC members about the proposed new gTLD policy.

Thanks,
Robin


(1) Board

-----

Dear (Board Member name),

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the GNSO draft final
report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, GNSO
PDP-Dec05, released 13 February 2007.  The policy proposal contains several
troubling provisions involving criteria and processes to select which text
strings will be accepted as new gTLDs.  If accepted, the policy will 
create an
enormous work-load burden and legal liability for ICANN in order to decide
which new gTLDs to accept.

The draft proposal recommends that ICANN staff make preliminary 
determinations about what strings are against public policy and who the 
legitimate sponsors of string should be.  The ICANN Board will make 
final decisions under the proposal.  The proposal further recommends
that applicants submit business plans, financial
data and other information that the ICANN staff and board will evaluate in
a subjective manner.  Subjective decisions of this nature are
systematically more resource intensive than objective, publicly
transparent, well-defined standards that leave no doubt as to what to
expect in the application process.  A well-defined, narrow, technical
approval process can be automated to a much greater extent than the highly
subjective judgments required by the existing proposal, and will 
streamline the
process so as to minimize resources necessary to administer gTLD
applications.


The proposed policy would ultimately put ICANN at systematic and ongoing 
risk
of lawsuits, both from rejected gTLD applicants and from other parties who
might oppose the selection of gTLDs of which they disapprove.  ICANN's
reputation is already shaky due to the subjectivity in the current process
which is slow, politicized, manipulable and unpredictable, no matter how
carefully it is administered.  The GNSO proposal further amplifies this
unfortunate situation many times over as it expands the number of gTLDs it
will establish over time.

In short, the GNSO proposal is seriously flawed as it involves ICANN in
matters well beyond its original narrow technical mandate, and it is
unnecessary for ICANN to insert itself so deeply in a political process so
far beyond its technical mission.  The GAC is also not the ideal body to be
assigning these censorial powers, as it will be shaped by a 100% consensus
dynamic where a single repressive country could veto any gTLD application
it disapproves of, regardless of whether it would be lawful in other
countries.

ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency has proposed amendments to the
language in the GNSO proposal that correct these shortcomings.  I urge you
to support the NCUC amendments and return ICANN to its proper and justified
technical mandate without opening up a Pandora's Box of political
machinations.

Sincerely,

(Constituent name)

-----



(2) GAC

-----

Dear (GAC Representative name),

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the GNSO draft final
report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, GNSO
PDP-Dec05, released 13 February 2007.  This proposal contains several
troubling provisions involving criteria and processes to select which text
strings will be accepted as new gTLDs.  These provisions will threaten the
national sovereignty of individual nations by requiring 100% international
consensus on the Governmental Advisory Council in order to approve any new
gTLDs.

In particular, the draft GNSO proposal provides that any individual 
member of GAC
can halt any gTLD application for any reason, leading to a requirement of
100% international consensus on any gTLD application.  This is highly
problematic, as there are no coherent international standards for 
morality, public policy, religion or freedom of expression, and this 
policy would allow the most
restrictive governments to veto the establishment of gTLDs that would be
perfectly acceptable to other nations.

For ICANN to attempt to work on the basis of total international consensus
in this area, is both unworkable and unwise.  If a particular nation wishes
to block a gTLD of which it disapproves, that choice should not be 
imposed on the rest of the world.  It is further troublesome that
this policy might set broader precedents that extend beyond gTLDs in the
way the Internet is governed.  It sets up ICANN as an authority with
tremendous censorship power and obligations defined by the most restrictive
policies among GAC members, directly impinging on the freedom of expression
in other countries with less restrictive policies.

It would be dangerous for ICANN to set such a precedent.  ICANN should not
participate in setting up a dynamic where words in new gTLD strings can be
prohibited in countries where they are lawful, simply because they may be
controversial in other countries.  Representative government needs a clear
process of accountability to the broadest possible range of citizens and
constituents, and ICANN is not structured to provide that accountability
systematically on a global basis.  This experiment in global governance is
inappropriate, poorly designed, and a threat to democratic processes that
have been carefully devised in many nations across the globe.

ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency has proposed amendments to the
language in the GNSO proposal that correct the proposed policy's 
shortcomings.  I urge you
to support the NCUC amendments and return ICANN to its proper and justified
technical mandate without opening up a Pandora's Box of political
machinations.

Sincerely,

(Constituent name)

-----