Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

[Mary Wong]

Yes, that was my intention (apologies if it wasn't clear).
 
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".
 
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.
 
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: 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


>>> 


From: Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
To:<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 5/4/2010 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100504/2cf32b3d/attachment.html>