draft ALAC statement on ICM/xxx
Hi, A draft on the ICM/xxx application and process is online <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?statement_on_icm_application_for_the_xxx...> Any comments? The text reads: "Draft ALAC Statement On the issue of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is concerned with the transparancy [sic] and accountability of the processes being undertaken and not with any matters of content that this sTLD may be host for. We also note the considerable time taken in and thoroughness of the independant [sic] review of this matter and as such the ALAC supports that the process be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner. We would like to see the issue settled quickly with the necessary transparency." Among the RALO's, so far only NARALO has drafted a statement: "During our most recent NARALO conference call (April 12th, 2010) the consensus of the discussion was that, given the wide spread support for the domain when it was first proposed and that the legal process has now rejected the validity of ICANN's initial resolution of the matter, ICANN should just approve the request without further unwarranted process. The NARALO members present on the call considered this to be a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." ALAC will be discussing and hopefully voting on a final statement during the monthly meeting on April 27. Please comment before then. My view: Think the ALAC draft needs clarification: e.g. "(ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the processes being undertaken BY STAFF and BOARD and not with any matters of content (apologies for caps :-)) and "and as such the ALAC supports that the BOARD'S FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ICM APPLICATION be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner." I also support the NA RALO statement. Thanks, Adam
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:59:42 +0900, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
My view: Think the ALAC draft needs clarification: e.g. "(ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the processes being undertaken BY STAFF and BOARD and not with any matters of content (apologies for caps :-))
agree.
"and as such the ALAC supports that the BOARD'S FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ICM APPLICATION be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner."
I would add : "in a manner that respects the decision of the Independent Review Panel."
I also support the NA RALO statement.
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html Patrick
+1 Bill On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:59:42 +0900, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
My view: Think the ALAC draft needs clarification: e.g. "(ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the processes being undertaken BY STAFF and BOARD and not with any matters of content (apologies for caps :-))
agree.
"and as such the ALAC supports that the BOARD'S FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ICM APPLICATION be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner."
I would add : "in a manner that respects the decision of the Independent Review Panel."
I also support the NA RALO statement.
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html
Patrick
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
I am in two minds about this, because I prefer Patrick's statement than NARALO's statement. That said, I also think that this whole thing is a can of worms, and would personally prefer only the original ALAC statement to be pursued. Either way, I'm not fussed. I realise the huge risks that ICANN might be subjected to if it got sued. What upsets me more about the subject is that ICANN would be at risk. That's a systemic issue, an Achilles' heel which I find untenable and which I hope we can address in the long term. Kind regards, Olivier Le 23/04/2010 12:35, William Drake a écrit :
+1
Bill
On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:59:42 +0900, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
My view: Think the ALAC draft needs clarification: e.g. "(ALAC) is concerned with the transparency and accountability of the processes being undertaken BY STAFF and BOARD and not with any matters of content (apologies for caps :-))
agree.
"and as such the ALAC supports that the BOARD'S FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ICM APPLICATION be carried out in an expedient, equitable, and defensible manner."
I would add : "in a manner that respects the decision of the Independent Review Panel."
I also support the NA RALO statement.
FWIW, I also support the NARALO statement. Actually, the comments I posted in a personal capacity go in the same direction: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icm-options-report/msg00523.html
Patrick
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:50:47 +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
I am in two minds about this, because I prefer Patrick's statement than NARALO's statement.
Olivier, You got me thinking again. I am alright with the first part of the NARALO statement. However, the sentence which invokes "free speech" is disturbing me. I am convinced that, in some societies, people honestly expect their government should protect them from what they consider inappropriate content. As an example, most European countries ban Nazi content, for obvious historical reasons. Yet, we do not consider that as censorship, but rather as a societal consensus. What bothers me is that some countries oppose the adoption of a a *global* resource like triple X to suit their *local* culture. The are basically trying to impose their values on the rest of the world. Nothing would prevent these countries which oppose a domain to pass legislation prohibiting triple X on their territory. I do not like or support that, but it least it would be their choice. So, at second thought, I do not support the NARALO statement. The free speech argument is not convincing and often seen as Northern Hemisphere imperialism. we should rather stick to the legal reasoning. There has been a decision by a panel which both parties agreed to comply to beforehand. Now ICANN has no other option than to comply to the decision.
I realise the huge risks that ICANN might be subjected to if it got sued. What upsets me more about the subject is that ICANN would be at risk. That's a systemic issue, an Achilles' heel which I find untenable and which I hope we can address in the long term.
whatever the decision, ICANN will get sued anyway :-( Patrick
participants (4)
-
Adam Peake -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Patrick Vande Walle -
William Drake