+1



On 4 May 2010, at 12:44, Mary Wong wrote:

> I think the statement overall is clear, concise and well-drafted - thanks so much, Milton!
> 
> At the same time, I share Avri's concerns. Perhaps, instead of saying:
>  
> - "It would be shocking if ICANN chose to ignore or circumvent the requirements of the IRP decision. An appeals process that has effect only when the board feels like complying is no accountability mechanism at all"
>  
> We could say:  
>  
> - "A Board decision that ignores or circumvents the IRP decision would seriously undermine ICANN's credibility and raise fundamental issues about its accountability mechanisms." (BTW, I really thought the sentences before and after the ones I pasted were absolutely pitch-perfect!)
>  
> Also, instead of saying:
>  
> -  "As advocates of civil liberties and freedom of expression, we believe it is unacceptable for a TLD string to be rejected simply because some people or some governments object to it. ICANN must not become a tool of those who want to discourage or censor certain kinds of legal content. We believe that ICANN should not be turning its coordination of top level domain names into mechanisms of content regulation or censorship"
>  
> How about:
>  
> - "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. The Board's action with respect to the IRP decision will be potentially significant for future decisions involving morality and public order objections for new top level domains. ICANN's mandate to coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism for content regulation or censorship." 
> 
> Cheers
> Mar
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> y
> >>>
> From:	Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> To:	<[log in to unmask]>
> Date:	5/4/2010 12:07 PM
> Subject:	Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case
> On 4 May 2010, at 11:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > The message this public comment has to convey, and convey strongly to ICANN, is that they lost a case on the merits and SHOULD comply with it. If they do not, it shows that the accountability mechanism they have touted is not real. They may have the legal right to do so but it is very bad for ICANN, for us, and for accountability. 
> 
> 
> i agree and whatever the reasons for it not being binding (i have not studied the origin of the mechanism), we want to say that there is an accountability reason for accepting the resolution even if it is not binding.
> 
> 
> > 
> > So your claim that the statement breeds "confusion about what sort of process this appeals mechanism is supposed to be" is true in some sense, but that is quite intentional.
> 
> ok
> 
> > Only it is not "confusion" I am breeding but higher expectations about what we can and should expect from this organization. 
> 
> ok
> 
> > 
> > 
> > That is in some sense a separate debate
> 
> and is it a discussion we want to start with this statement?  if we do, it may take a bit more context and more words and might just lose the point we want to make - put .xxx into the root now.
> 
> the larger issue might be a good one for a well developed statement to the Accountability and Transparency RT.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> a.