Hi,
I believe the Executive Committee is willing (consensus in that no one objected) to let the Policy committee decide (rough consensus) on publishing the comments as an NCSG statement.
EC: Please correct me if I am wrong.
In this case the Policy Committee has a day to decide.
PC: You have a day. I hope this is not too fast.
thanks
a.
On 9 May 2010, at 01:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Milton, my opinion: go ahead.
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 05/07/2010 02:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> My only objection would be that today is May 7 and the comment deadline is May 10.
>> On that basis I will strip out the NCSG mention in the comments and go with the NCUC. If the NCSG policy committee gets its act together in record time it can refile the same comments, or add its own fillips. Frankly I don't have time for that - this is end of semester and I have a lot of deadlines to meet and don't see much value being added by continued quibbling over this.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:22 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [ncsg-policy] RE: Revised xxx comment
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> That is a really good point. During this transition, we have been using
>>> the EC for such final decisions. And that group works on full
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>> But in the charter* it is obvious that this activity is the job of the
>>> Policy Committee and not the EC. the Policy Committee does work on a
>>> rough consensus basis.
>>>
>>> Unless I hear an objection from the Executive Committee, I am willing to
>>> leave the decision to the Policy Committee for NCSG endorsement of the
>>> response. I would expect them to take into account the opinions of
>>> the membership as have been expressed. Once they have made a decision,
>>> if they decide positively I would be willing to send it in as an NCSG
>>> position.
>>>
>>> From what I have read however, it may be worth the Policy Committee
>>> looking at the wording and seeing whether any of the wording can be
>>> modified to meet the recent objections that have been heard.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>> * which is still under review and which I will update today with the
>>> changes as I understand them from the discussions so that there is still
>>> a day or two to comment before going to vote.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 May 2010, at 08:59, Debra Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> Is this more appropriately a decision for the NCSG Policy Committee
>>> and
>>>> not the EC? Please remind me, under the transitional charter, are
>>>> decisions of the Policy Committee also made on a full consensus basis?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Debbie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:39 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Revised xxx comment
>>>>
>>>> Hi Debbie,
>>>>
>>>> Once we had the text I was going to check with the EC to determine
>>>> whether the comment could go as an NCSG statement or needed to go as
>>>> NCUC statement (assuming it gets NCUC approval).
>>>>
>>>> At this point your objections would make it only a candidate for NCUC
>>>> statement as the NCSG-EC operates on a full consensus basis.
>>>>
>>>> Is there some change that would make the statement acceptable to you?
>>>> Alternatively can you elaborate on your issues with the statement.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> a.
>>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2010, at 11:25,<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> If this comment is intended to be comment submitted by the NCSG, then
>>>>> please let the record reflect that I cannot endorse filing any
>>> comment
>>>>> on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debbie
>>>>>
>>>>> Debra Y. Hughes, Senior Counsel
>>>>> American Red Cross
>>>>>
>>>>> Office of the General Counsel
>>>>> 2025 E Street, NW
>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20006
>>>>> Phone: (202) 303-5356
>>>>> Fax: (202) 303-0143
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:45 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Cc: 'NCSG-Policy'
>>>>> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Revised xxx comment
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, this has been revised to reflect Avri's and Mary Wong's comments.
>>>> So
>>>>> you can see the changes, I have used a Word doc with the tracking
>>>>> function on. A text version pasted below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Milton L. Mueller
>>>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>>> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
>>>>>
>>>>> ====
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders
>>>>>
>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency and Noncommercial Stakeholders
>>>>> Group (NCSG) represent nearly 200 nonprofit organizations, public
>>>>> interest advocacy groups, educators, researchers, philanthropic
>>>>> organizations and individuals.
>>>>>
>>>>> NCUC and NCSG believe that ICANN has a very simple choice to make in
>>>> its
>>>>> handling of the .xxx domain. The board can accept the fact that
>>> ICANN
>>>>> made serious mistakes in its handling of the matter and then make a
>>>> good
>>>>> faith effort to rectify those mistakes - or it can refuse to do so.
>>>> That
>>>>> is all there is to this decision. The complicated "process options"
>>>>> offered by the general counsel are distractions. Either ICANN accepts
>>>>> the determination of the independent review panel and creates the
>>> .xxx
>>>>> domain, or it doesn't. Those are the only "options" of relevance to
>>>> the
>>>>> community.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noncommercial users believe that the board should accept the decision
>>>> of
>>>>> its independent review panel and prepare to add .xxx to the root.
>>>>> Anything less will raise serious doubts about ICANN's accountability
>>>>> mechanisms and will undermine the legitimacy of the corporation and
>>>> its
>>>>> processes. The contract offered to ICM Registry should be based on
>>> the
>>>>> same template as that offered to .mobi, .jobs and other
>>>> contemporaneous
>>>>> applicants for sponsored TLDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noncommercial stakeholders are deeply interested in the outcome of
>>> the
>>>>> .xxx application for two reasons.
>>>>> 1) As supporters of improved accountability for ICANN, we would be
>>>>> deeply concerned by a Board decision that ignored ICANN's own
>>>>> Independent Review process. The IRP is one of ICANN's few external
>>>>> accountability mechanisms. The .xxx case was the first test of that
>>>>> process. A group of distinguished and neutral panelists reviewed the
>>>>> record of this case in extensive detail, and decided against ICANN. A
>>>>> Board decision that ignores or circumvents the IRP decision would
>>>>> seriously undermine ICANN's credibility and raise fundamental
>>>> questions
>>>>> about its accountability mechanisms. We also feel that refusal to
>>>> comply
>>>>> with the IRP will encourage dispute settlement through litigation in
>>>>> national courts, which is not in the interests of ICANN or its global
>>>>> community.
>>>>> 2) ICANN's decision has important implications for Internet freedom
>>>>> of expression. While a .xxx domain is undeniably controversial, ICANN
>>>>> must guard against becoming a tool of those who wish to discourage or
>>>>> censor certain kinds of legal content. A TLD string to should not be
>>>>> rejected simply because some people or some governments object to the
>>>>> types of content that might be associated with it. ICANN's mandate to
>>>>> coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a
>>>>> mechanism for content regulation or censorship.
>>>>>
>>>>> To conclude, we ask the Board to look past the noise that will surely
>>>> be
>>>>> generated by any public discussion that touches on pornography. This
>>>>> public comment period should not be a poll assessing the popularity
>>> of
>>>>> the .xxx domain. The board must focus exclusively on compliance with
>>>> its
>>>>> own appeals process and strive to maintain ICANN's integrity.
>>>>
>>
|
