"Shit or get off the pot" - looks good to me. On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear all: > > Robin asked me to do a first draft so here it is. > > Comments must be filed by May 10 > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > The Noncommercial Users Constituency and Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > (NCSG) represents 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. 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 also feel that failure to comply with > the IRP will encourage dispute settlement through litigation, which is not > in the interests of ICANN or its community. > > 2) 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. > > 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. > > > > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------