Just to say that I'm not wedded to my suggestions, and am happy to go with whatever the preferred view is. Cheers Mary 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 >>> From: Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> To:<[log in to unmask]> Date: 5/4/2010 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case I understand Mary's intent. I still think this is a sleeping dog, or rather sleeping evil zombie bloodsucking killer, that we should let lie. I think it better to make the general point (ICANN's mandate to coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism for content regulation or censorship) without invoking the MAPO daemon. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:29 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM > Registry case > > Hi, > > I think you misunderstood the sentence. > > it does NOT say, they should base it on the new criteria. > > It says that rejecting it now WILL establish a bad standard for Future. > > which, if i understand is what you say is the message you want to > convey. > > a. > > On 4 May 2010, at 15:39, Milton L Mueller 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