Suggested statement, the top part of which garnered approval on at least one of our numerous lists. ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating strings, period. It should publish technical criteria and minimally evaluate whether a registry fulfills those. Since all indications are that .xxx fulfils any technical criteria that ICANN has established, ICANN should promptly approve that agreement. Further, it should promptly open a process for applications for new unsponsored gTLDs. --Wendy At 12:12 PM 2/3/2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

All,

please pardon me for my insistence on deliverables, but I reiterate my request: do we want to state a formal position on the new proposed .xxx contract? The public comment period expires in two days (see

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05jan07.htm

) - of course we can be slightly late as usual, but if we want to say anything, this is the moment. Otherwise, I will convey feelings informally and as a range of opinions by individual ALAC members, but it's not the same thing.

If we want to make a statement, someone should volunteer to put together a first draft asap, by gathering the opinions that were posted (sorry for not doing that myself, I'm traveling and will barely make it to the conf call).

Regards,

PS I've taken the liberty to add this and other issues to the conf call's agenda on the wiki. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/