+2 On 4 May 2010 13:22, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 > > > > On 4 May 2010, at 12:44, Mary Wong wrote: > > > I think the statement overall is clear, concise and well-drafted - thanks > so much, Milton! > > > > At the same time, I share Avri's concerns. Perhaps, instead of saying: > > > > - "It would be shocking if ICANN chose to ignore or circumvent the > requirements of the IRP decision. An appeals process that has effect only > when the board feels like complying is no accountability mechanism at all" > > > > We could say: > > > > - "A Board decision that ignores or circumvents the IRP decision would > seriously undermine ICANN's credibility and raise fundamental issues about > its accountability mechanisms." (BTW, I really thought the sentences before > and after the ones I pasted were absolutely pitch-perfect!) > > > > Also, instead of saying: > > > > - "As advocates of civil liberties and freedom of expression, we believe > it is unacceptable for a TLD string to be rejected simply because some > people or some governments object to it. ICANN must not become a tool of > those who want to discourage or censor certain kinds of legal content. We > believe that ICANN should not be turning its coordination of top level > domain names into mechanisms of content regulation or censorship" > > > > How about: > > > > - "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. The Board's action with respect to the IRP decision > will be potentially significant for future decisions involving morality and > public order objections for new top level domains. ICANN's mandate to > coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism > for content regulation or censorship." > > > > Cheers > > Mar > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > Franklin Pierce Law Center > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > y > > >>> > > From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > > To: <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: 5/4/2010 12:07 PM > > Subject: Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case > > On 4 May 2010, at 11:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > The message this public comment has to convey, and convey strongly to > ICANN, is that they lost a case on the merits and SHOULD comply with it. If > they do not, it shows that the accountability mechanism they have touted is > not real. They may have the legal right to do so but it is very bad for > ICANN, for us, and for accountability. > > > > > > i agree and whatever the reasons for it not being binding (i have not > studied the origin of the mechanism), we want to say that there is an > accountability reason for accepting the resolution even if it is not > binding. > > > > > > > > > > So your claim that the statement breeds "confusion about what sort of > process this appeals mechanism is supposed to be" is true in some sense, but > that is quite intentional. > > > > ok > > > > > Only it is not "confusion" I am breeding but higher expectations about > what we can and should expect from this organization. > > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > > That is in some sense a separate debate > > > > and is it a discussion we want to start with this statement? if we do, > it may take a bit more context and more words and might just lose the point > we want to make - put .xxx into the root now. > > > > the larger issue might be a good one for a well developed statement to > the Accountability and Transparency RT. > > > > a. > > > > > > a. >