[ncsg-ec] Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Revised xxx comment

Sun May 9 15:22:10 CEST 2010

Hi Avri,

+1 to publis comment as an NCSG statement.

Rafik

2010/5/9 Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se>

> Hi,
>
> I believe the Executive Committee is willing (consensus in that no one
> objected) to let the Policy committee decide (rough consensus) on publishing
> the comments as an NCSG statement.
>
>
> EC: Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> In this case  the Policy Committee has a day to decide.
>
> PC:  You have a day.  I hope this is not too fast.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
> On 9 May 2010, at 01:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
> > Milton, my opinion: go ahead.
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 05/07/2010 02:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> My only objection would be that today is May 7 and the comment deadline
> is May 10.
> >> On that basis I will strip out the NCSG mention in the comments and go
> with the NCUC. If the NCSG policy committee gets its act together in record
> time it can refile the same comments, or add its own fillips. Frankly I
> don't have time for that - this is end of semester and I have a lot of
> deadlines to meet and don't see much value being added by continued
> quibbling over this.
> >>
> >> --MM
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> >>> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:22 AM
> >>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [ncsg-policy] RE: Revised xxx comment
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> That is a really good point.  During this transition, we have been
> using
> >>> the EC for such final decisions.   And that group works on full
> >>> consensus.
> >>>
> >>> But in the charter* it is obvious that this activity is the job of the
> >>> Policy Committee and not the EC.  the Policy Committee does work on a
> >>> rough consensus basis.
> >>>
> >>> Unless I hear an objection from the Executive Committee, I am willing
> to
> >>> leave the decision to the Policy Committee for NCSG endorsement of the
> >>> response.    I would expect them to take into account the opinions of
> >>> the membership as have been expressed.  Once they have made a decision,
> >>> if they decide positively I would be willing to send it in as an NCSG
> >>> position.
> >>>
> >>> From what I have read however, it may be worth the Policy Committee
> >>> looking at the wording and seeing whether any of the wording can be
> >>> modified to meet the recent objections that have been heard.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> a.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *  which is still under review and which I will update today with the
> >>> changes as I understand them from the discussions so that there is
> still
> >>> a day or two to comment before going to vote.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7 May 2010, at 08:59, Debra Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Avri,
> >>>> Is this more appropriately a decision for the NCSG Policy Committee
> >>> and
> >>>> not the EC?  Please remind me, under the transitional charter, are
> >>>> decisions of the Policy Committee also made on a full consensus basis?
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Debbie
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
> >>>> [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:39 AM
> >>>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Revised xxx comment
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Debbie,
> >>>>
> >>>> Once we had the text I was going to check with the EC to determine
> >>>> whether the comment could go as an NCSG statement or needed to go as
> >>>> NCUC statement (assuming it gets NCUC approval).
> >>>>
> >>>> At this point your objections would make it only a candidate for NCUC
> >>>> statement as the NCSG-EC operates on a full consensus basis.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there some change that would make the statement acceptable to you?
> >>>> Alternatively can you elaborate on your issues with the statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6 May 2010, at 11:25,<HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If this comment is intended to be comment submitted by the NCSG, then
> >>>>> please let the record reflect that I cannot endorse filing any
> >>> comment
> >>>>> on this issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Debbie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Debra Y. Hughes, Senior Counsel
> >>>>> American Red Cross
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Office of the General Counsel
> >>>>> 2025 E Street, NW
> >>>>> Washington, D.C. 20006
> >>>>> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> >>>>> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> >>>>> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:45 AM
> >>>>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >>>>> Cc: 'NCSG-Policy'
> >>>>> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Revised xxx comment
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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/20100509/44050255/attachment.html>