I understand Mary's intent. I still think this is a sleeping dog, or rather sleeping evil zombie bloodsucking killer, that we should let lie. I think it better to make the general point (ICANN's mandate to coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism for content regulation or censorship) without invoking the MAPO daemon.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM
> Registry case
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think you misunderstood the sentence.
> 
> it does NOT say, they should base it on the new criteria.
> 
> It says that rejecting it now WILL establish a bad standard for Future.
> 
> which, if i understand is what you say is the message you want to
> convey.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 4 May 2010, at 15:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > - "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."
> >
> >
> > Yikes! This is exactly what we DON'T want to say. The board's
> decision on .xxx should be based on the process it established for the
> approval of sTLDs back in 2004-5 and NOT on any retroactively-applied
> standards of "morality and public order" that were defined precisely in
> order to censor things like .xxx. If there is one big reason why
> handling of this IRP outcome is not going the way it is supposed to, it
> is because the ICANN management fears that "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.."
> >
> > NCUC adamantly opposed the "morality and public order" provisions
> anyway and most of us, if not all, believe they are illegitimate
> anyway. I believe that that linkage does not and should not exist, and
> therefore the sentence is factually wrong.
> >
> > Strike that sentence from Mary's amendments and they are all
> acceptable to me. I do, however, believe that we are, and should be
> proud to say we are, "advocates of civil liberties and freedom of
> expression".
> >
> > --MM