Revised xxx comment

[Nuno Garcia]

I support this document.

Best regards,

Nuno Garcia
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
ULHT, UBI
Portugal

2010/5/6 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

> Hi, this has been revised to reflect Avri's and Mary Wong's comments. So
> you can see the changes, I have used a Word doc with the tracking function
> on. A text version pasted below.
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
>
> ====
>
> Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders
>
> The Noncommercial Users Constituency and Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> (NCSG) represent 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. A Board decision that ignores
> or circumvents the IRP decision would seriously undermine ICANN's
> credibility and raise fundamental questions about its accountability
> mechanisms. We also feel that refusal to comply with the IRP will encourage
> dispute settlement through litigation in national courts, which is not in
> the interests of ICANN or its global community.
> 2)      ICANN's decision has important implications for Internet freedom of
> expression. 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. A TLD string to should not be rejected
> simply because some people or some governments object to the types of
> content that might be associated with it. ICANN's mandate to coordinate top
> level domain names cannot and should not become a mechanism for 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100506/3669db30/attachment.html>