Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

[Maria Farrell]

+2

On 4 May 2010 13:22, Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> On 4 May 2010, at 12:44, Mary Wong wrote:
>
> > I think the statement overall is clear, concise and well-drafted - thanks
> so much, Milton!
> >
> > At the same time, I share Avri's concerns. Perhaps, instead of saying:
> >
> > - "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 could say:
> >
> > - "A Board decision that ignores or circumvents the IRP decision would
> seriously undermine ICANN's credibility and raise fundamental issues about
> its accountability mechanisms." (BTW, I really thought the sentences before
> and after the ones I pasted were absolutely pitch-perfect!)
> >
> > Also, instead of saying:
> >
> > -  "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"
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > - "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."
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mar
> >
> > Mary W S Wong
> > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> > Franklin Pierce Law Center
> > Two White Street
> > Concord, NH 03301
> > USA
> > Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
> > 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
> > y
> > >>>
> > From: Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
> > To:   <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> > Date: 5/4/2010 12:07 PM
> > Subject:      Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case
> > On 4 May 2010, at 11:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > The message this public comment has to convey, and convey strongly to
> ICANN, is that they lost a case on the merits and SHOULD comply with it. If
> they do not, it shows that the accountability mechanism they have touted is
> not real. They may have the legal right to do so but it is very bad for
> ICANN, for us, and for accountability.
> >
> >
> > i agree and whatever the reasons for it not being binding (i have not
> studied the origin of the mechanism), we want to say that there is an
> accountability reason for accepting the resolution even if it is not
> binding.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So your claim that the statement breeds "confusion about what sort of
> process this appeals mechanism is supposed to be" is true in some sense, but
> that is quite intentional.
> >
> > ok
> >
> > > Only it is not "confusion" I am breeding but higher expectations about
> what we can and should expect from this organization.
> >
> > ok
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is in some sense a separate debate
> >
> > and is it a discussion we want to start with this statement?  if we do,
> it may take a bit more context and more words and might just lose the point
> we want to make - put .xxx into the root now.
> >
> > the larger issue might be a good one for a well developed statement to
> the Accountability and Transparency RT.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > a.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100504/7fe0c1bb/attachment.html>