Hi, I support the statement and think Avri's suggestions improve its overall clarity and strength. Maria On 4 May 2010 11:29, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi, > > I support the statement in general, but I have two concerns that might be > helped by some rewording. > > > - The appeals process is not binding it is only advisory. While we can > advocate that it be listened to, does it make sense for us to call it > binding. And do we want, for consistency sake, to therefore a-prioiri > commit ourselves to all future decisions as binding. We may wish for their > to be a method of bringing appeal for a binding decision (not sure where I > stand on this) but this mechanisms is not design that way. It is designed > to give an opinion that must be responded to in a complete and thoughtful > manner. It does not require compliance. M specific problem is with the > sentence: > > "An appeals process that has effect only when the board feels like > complying is no accountability mechanism at all." > > I recommend dropping this sentence as it adds nothing but confusion about > what sort of process this appeals mechanism is supposed to be. > > - while I self identify as supporting and even advocating free expression > and civil liberties and I think many if not most of the NCSG members also > self identify that way, I do not think anything is gained by including "As > advocates of civil liberties and freedom of expression, " at the beginning > of point 2. If anything it weakens the statement by identifying it as > merely the statement of advocates as opposed to being a statement that all > reasonable people might make. I suggest dropping the phrase. > > Thanks for putting together the draft. > > > a. > > On 2 May 2010, at 22:36, Milton L Mueller 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 > > >