Hi

As a member of the PC, I support ncsg endorsing the xxx statement  
that's been floated on the list.

Best

Bill

Sent from my iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 11:16, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>
>>>
>