[governance] Emergencyresolution on.xxx recall-and thedestruction of ICANN's integrity

[Raul Echeberria]

Milton et al.

I think that the most important in this case is, if the system work, 
that the resolution at ICANN Board, represents most of stakeholders' views.
While i share with you the view that .xxx doesn't produce pornography, 
and it doesn't have any impact in the availability of pornography in the 
world, I am also aware that several governments have expressed serious 
concerns regarding the approval of .xxx. Maybe by ignorance or maybe 
because they have their genuine concerns.

You said that this "formal" complaint is based in the US Gov influence. 
Maybe. What does sound strange for you? The influence of the US Gov in 
the international fora is not anything new, and it goes much more beyond 
Internet issues.
But, in this case, it coincide with a broad claim from many other 
governments and maybe also other organizations.

ICANN, based in its own processes and with independence, has to deal 
also with this kind of complaints. It is something natural for me.
The decision regarding .xxx was very controversial, starting by the fact 
that it was taken by majority in the Board and with abstentions and 
other people who by not participating in the meeting,  avoided the 
resonsibility of voting in this "hot" issue.
At the same time, it didn't seem to be very intelligent to approve this 
controversial gTLD, just a few months before the summit. The governmnets 
don't know yet what is the role the they want to play regarding new 
gTLDs. There are very different views, and it is difficult to move ahead 
in this context.

Now, ICANN has to evaluate the reaction in different constituencies 
(including governments of course)  and act in consequence. They have to 
do that in a calm way without hurry up. The mess has been already created.

I don't see any reason to submit a  CS position  if nothing has happened 
yet. The US Government, the GAC and the GAC chair, have the right to 
express their positions in any topic.

And at last  by not least I don't see it as a US politics problem. And 
if you think that it is, that the USG is acting influenced by some 
religious groups,  then you should promote this discussion mainly 
internally in US.


Raúl



Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>>Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 08/17/05 11:13 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I think you are creating a whole conspiracy theory behind this fact. 
>>    
>>
>
>I am just trying to establish sequence of events and cause and effect.
>I'm a social scientist, I can't help it.
>
>But never mind Veni, my point is not to write the history of this
>event. It is to identify it as a very important, and potentially
>dangerous change in the way ICANN operates. I think the Board needs to
>stand up for its process in this case and move ahead with the
>delegation. 
>
>More importantly I think that civil society and private sector
>interests need to make it clear to GAC and the USG that they do not want
>arbitrary interventions or after the fact "Vetoes" of TLDs. 
>
>TLD additions process should be simple, uniform, fair and fast, and
>should not be based on censorship. the process should be global not
>based on particular national preferences. 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance