<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Yes, that was my intention (apologies if it wasn't clear).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How about changing the sentence at issue, so as to read: "The Board's action with respect to the IRP decision could be significant in potentially influencing future decisions involving morality and public order objections to new top level domains".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I also was not suggesting we ought not to be proud of advocating civil liberties and free speech protections; merely that from a drafting perspective I don't want readers who may skim over comments such as ours to do the "eye rolling" when they see the original phrase heading up that paragraph, such as to miss the main points following.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Avri Doria <avri@LTU.SE></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>5/4/2010 4:30 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Hi,<BR><BR>I think you misunderstood the sentence.<BR><BR>it does NOT say, they should base it on the new criteria.<BR><BR>It says that rejecting it now WILL establish a bad standard for Future.<BR><BR>which, if i understand is what you say is the message you want to convey.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR>On 4 May 2010, at 15:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR><BR><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> - "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." </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> 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..”</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> 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.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> 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”.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> --MM</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>