Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

[Avri Doria]

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
>