Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

[Maria Farrell]

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 <avri at ltu.se> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100504/1f27b324/attachment.html>