More (Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case)

[Mary Wong]

Just to say that I'm not wedded to my suggestions, and am happy to go with whatever the preferred view is.
 
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: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
To:<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 5/4/2010 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case
I understand Mary's intent. I still think this is a sleeping dog, or rather sleeping evil zombie bloodsucking killer, that we should let lie. I think it better to make the general point (ICANN's mandate to coordinate top level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism for content regulation or censorship) without invoking the MAPO daemon.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] 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/c46426fb/attachment.html>