Key changes:

- All mention of GAC letter eliminated, focus is exclusively on U.S.
DoC. Puts the heat where it belongs.
- Focus is exclusively on role of government as it affects content
reg./censorship
- Process is gone. I am not convinced that this is not a serious issue,
but discussion of it diverts us from the
more serious problems (asking ICANN to respect process? --laugh)
- It's much shorter

======

DRAFT STATEMENT on .XXX
v 2.0 8/19/05

The following civil society groups and individuals wish to express our
concern over the recent request by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
delay, and possibly deny, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board.
The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department raises important
issues
regarding the role of governments in the administration of Internet
identifiers.

ICANN was intended to globalize the governance of the domain name
system by placing responsibility in the hands of a private
sector/civil
society-based authority. Under ICANN's original design, business,
civil society and the technical community all had roughly equal
status,
and governmental representatives acted in an advisory capacity.
Non-governmental internationalization of Internet administration was
intended to keep the Internet's core coordinating functions free from
national politics, geopolitical rivalries and territorial
jurisdiction.

The Commerce Department intervention, however, raises the possibility
that governments will assert authority to overrule ICANN decisions in
response to national and international political pressures. The
concern
is particularly strong in this case because of the open
acknowledgement
in the Commerce Department's August 11 letter of the influence of an
organized campaign by domestic political interests devoted to content
regulation of the Internet. 

In reviewing its decision regarding the .xxx delegation, we urge the
ICANN Board to be mindful of the need to restrain the influence of
governments, national politics and advocates of content regulation in
the Internet's operation. We urge it not to make any concessions that
would encourage more such interventions in the future. We call to your
attention the conclusion of a recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences
expert report that "Governance of the DNS is not an appropriate venue
for the playing out of national political interests." We believe that
administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral;
censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of
national-level policies and should not be extended into the global
management of the domain name system. 

We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the
oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to
take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through
careful, deliberate negotiations and multilateral agreements among
governments and other stakeholders.