Could you maybe just answer a couple of the substantive questions? This is the link to the comments, concerns, and questions about NCUC version 6 that have been posted on the charter discussion WiKi for nearly a week. https://st.icann.org/ncsg-commons/index.cgi?ncsg_structure Cheryl B. Preston Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University 434 JRCB Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-2312 [log in to unmask] >>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 3/20/2009 1:59:10 pm >>> So the "cybersafety" constituency proponents want to bring discussion to ICANN about "Internet safety" and when people start discussing what that means to them the discussion is called "inappropriate" by the proponents of the discussion? Interesting way of bringing discussion of a subject to a community. Robin On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:46 PM, David H Bailey wrote: > This discussion is a bit tiresome, and more than a little bit > inappropriate. > > Can't we return to answering the questions posed last week in the > CSC response to version 6 of the NCUC proposal? > > DHB > > My position of online safety is that ICANN should only protect > against fraud and not free speech. Porn is a slippery slope. If we > were to take the Mormon position against porn, do we then take the > Catholic position against birth control or condom use? Do we take > down criticism of Islam? Do we protect children from "cults". ICANN > is not in the law enforcement business. We aren't here to police > the Internet - just make it work. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]