Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

I would agree with Milton here. The morality and public order issue is something that we don’t want to touch and we certainly don’t want to be the first ones to make reference between the .xxx and issues of morality and public order. When the .xxx was shut down by ICANN it was based on morality and public order, a justification that appeared to be enough to disregard a wide range of other important issues that should have allowed the addition of the .xxx domain into the Root. So for me, the .xxx has nothing to do with  morality and public order and – as already said – this issue should not even constitute part of the new gTLD objection process.
My two cents
KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Law Lecturer,
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: http://domainnamelaw.ning.com/


From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:45 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Proposed NCUC/NCSG comment on the ICM Registry case

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<mailto: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/20100505/ea7b176f/attachment.html>