I support this document. Best regards, Nuno Garcia Assistant Professor of Computer Science ULHT, UBI Portugal 2010/5/6 Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> > 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. >