Hi As a member of the PC, I support ncsg endorsing the xxx statement that's been floated on the list. Best Bill Sent from my iPhone On May 9, 2010, at 11:16, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>> >