+1 On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > - "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." > > > Yikes! This is exactly what we DON’T want to say. The board’s decision on > .xxx should be based on the process it established for the approval of sTLDs > back in 2004-5 and NOT on any retroactively-applied standards of “morality > and public order” that were defined precisely in order to censor things like > .xxx. If there is one big reason why handling of this IRP outcome is not > going the way it is supposed to, it is because the ICANN management fears > that “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..” > > NCUC adamantly opposed the “morality and public order” provisions anyway and > most of us, if not all, believe they are illegitimate anyway. I believe that > that linkage does not and should not exist, and therefore the sentence is > factually wrong. > > > > Strike that sentence from Mary’s amendments and they are all acceptable to > me. I do, however, believe that we are, and should be proud to say we are, > “advocates of civil liberties and freedom of expression”. > > > > --MM