Could you maybe just answer a couple of the substantive questions?  This is the link to the comments, concerns, and questions about NCUC version 6 that have been posted on the charter discussion WiKi for nearly a week.  https://st.icann.org/ncsg-commons/index.cgi?ncsg_structure 



Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
[log in to unmask]

>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 3/20/2009 1:59:10 pm >>>
So the "cybersafety" constituency proponents want to bring discussion  
to ICANN about "Internet safety" and when people start discussing  
what that means to them the discussion is called "inappropriate" by  
the proponents of the discussion?

Interesting way of bringing discussion of a subject to a community.

Robin


On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:46 PM, David H Bailey wrote:

> This discussion is a bit tiresome, and more than a little bit  
> inappropriate.
>
> Can't we return to answering the questions posed last week in the  
> CSC response to version 6 of the NCUC proposal?
>
> DHB
>
> My position of online safety is that ICANN should only protect  
> against fraud and not free speech. Porn is a slippery slope. If we  
> were to take the Mormon position against porn, do we then take the  
> Catholic position against birth control or condom use? Do we take  
> down criticism of Islam? Do we protect children from "cults". ICANN  
> is not in the law enforcement business. We aren't here to police  
> the Internet - just make it work.




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]