Hi there NCUC'rs: Below are a couple sample letters that people can use to contact ICANN Board members and GAC members about the proposed new gTLD policy. Thanks, Robin (1) Board ----- Dear (Board Member name), I am writing to you because I am concerned about the GNSO draft final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, GNSO PDP-Dec05, released 13 February 2007. The policy proposal contains several troubling provisions involving criteria and processes to select which text strings will be accepted as new gTLDs. If accepted, the policy will create an enormous work-load burden and legal liability for ICANN in order to decide which new gTLDs to accept. The draft proposal recommends that ICANN staff make preliminary determinations about what strings are against public policy and who the legitimate sponsors of string should be. The ICANN Board will make final decisions under the proposal. The proposal further recommends that applicants submit business plans, financial data and other information that the ICANN staff and board will evaluate in a subjective manner. Subjective decisions of this nature are systematically more resource intensive than objective, publicly transparent, well-defined standards that leave no doubt as to what to expect in the application process. A well-defined, narrow, technical approval process can be automated to a much greater extent than the highly subjective judgments required by the existing proposal, and will streamline the process so as to minimize resources necessary to administer gTLD applications. The proposed policy would ultimately put ICANN at systematic and ongoing risk of lawsuits, both from rejected gTLD applicants and from other parties who might oppose the selection of gTLDs of which they disapprove. ICANN's reputation is already shaky due to the subjectivity in the current process which is slow, politicized, manipulable and unpredictable, no matter how carefully it is administered. The GNSO proposal further amplifies this unfortunate situation many times over as it expands the number of gTLDs it will establish over time. In short, the GNSO proposal is seriously flawed as it involves ICANN in matters well beyond its original narrow technical mandate, and it is unnecessary for ICANN to insert itself so deeply in a political process so far beyond its technical mission. The GAC is also not the ideal body to be assigning these censorial powers, as it will be shaped by a 100% consensus dynamic where a single repressive country could veto any gTLD application it disapproves of, regardless of whether it would be lawful in other countries. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency has proposed amendments to the language in the GNSO proposal that correct these shortcomings. I urge you to support the NCUC amendments and return ICANN to its proper and justified technical mandate without opening up a Pandora's Box of political machinations. Sincerely, (Constituent name) ----- (2) GAC ----- Dear (GAC Representative name), I am writing to you because I am concerned about the GNSO draft final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, GNSO PDP-Dec05, released 13 February 2007. This proposal contains several troubling provisions involving criteria and processes to select which text strings will be accepted as new gTLDs. These provisions will threaten the national sovereignty of individual nations by requiring 100% international consensus on the Governmental Advisory Council in order to approve any new gTLDs. In particular, the draft GNSO proposal provides that any individual member of GAC can halt any gTLD application for any reason, leading to a requirement of 100% international consensus on any gTLD application. This is highly problematic, as there are no coherent international standards for morality, public policy, religion or freedom of expression, and this policy would allow the most restrictive governments to veto the establishment of gTLDs that would be perfectly acceptable to other nations. For ICANN to attempt to work on the basis of total international consensus in this area, is both unworkable and unwise. If a particular nation wishes to block a gTLD of which it disapproves, that choice should not be imposed on the rest of the world. It is further troublesome that this policy might set broader precedents that extend beyond gTLDs in the way the Internet is governed. It sets up ICANN as an authority with tremendous censorship power and obligations defined by the most restrictive policies among GAC members, directly impinging on the freedom of expression in other countries with less restrictive policies. It would be dangerous for ICANN to set such a precedent. ICANN should not participate in setting up a dynamic where words in new gTLD strings can be prohibited in countries where they are lawful, simply because they may be controversial in other countries. Representative government needs a clear process of accountability to the broadest possible range of citizens and constituents, and ICANN is not structured to provide that accountability systematically on a global basis. This experiment in global governance is inappropriate, poorly designed, and a threat to democratic processes that have been carefully devised in many nations across the globe. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency has proposed amendments to the language in the GNSO proposal that correct the proposed policy's shortcomings. I urge you to support the NCUC amendments and return ICANN to its proper and justified technical mandate without opening up a Pandora's Box of political machinations. Sincerely, (Constituent name) -----