Hi Avri, +1 to publis comment as an NCSG statement. Rafik 2010/5/9 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > 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. > >>>> > >> > >