[governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall

[Ewan SUTHERLAND]

I am at a total loss to see where "censorship" came into this. Labelling
material that one person or one groups considers to be triple-X or
salacious or whatever and placing it in a set of domain names is neither
prohibiting it nor promoting it. 

This is about a very sensitive subject that was very likely to blow up
in the faces of ICANN. 

There is a European precedent. A group came forward wanting some
pan-European telephone numbers (E.164 range +3883-9) for use with
premium rate services, read that as triple-X. Initially, the numbering
experts tried to treat is as a technical issue, but were eventually
persuaded that they represented ministries and regulatory authorities
with much wider responsibilities. The proposal was refused, being very
complex, very sensitive and lacking the necessary safeguards. 

The issue for ICANN is whether, if it ignores the advice from GAC it
would damage its credibility. It might take the view that the whole
thing, in the medium term, will blow over.

Ewan



> Milton, you make your points well. a few comments below..
> 
> >
> > ICANN-T has already complied with Commerce Dept and GAC chair's request
> > for a delay.
> 
> Has it? where is this announced? all I see is XXX agreeing to a delay, 
> which is
> different.
> 
> > The issue now is what happens at the end of the delay.
> 
> yes;-)
> >
> > The best way for ICANN-W to survive this process is to give the govts a
> > month to vent, while calmly but firmly explaining why ICANN made the
> > decision and why it's a bad idea to go back on it now, and why gTLD
> > additions should not be turned into political footballs. And explain to
> > them that if they want to change the way ICANN relates to governments,
> > they have to do it right, i.e., by negotiating a treaty agreement among
> > themselves, not by leaping at tempting political targets.
> 
> agreed, but as you state, the issue is what happens at the end of a
delay (if
> there is one) and USG and/or GAC are still not happy
> >
> > Maybe you are not as worried as I am. Fine. Let's work on the language.
> > But no one can reasonably say that the first open attempt at government
> > censorship of the domain name space and the first open and explicit
> > intervention by the US Commerce Department in ICANN policy process isn't
> > something that requires some attention.
> >
> 
> I dont see any attempt at censorship of the domain name space. I see a
request
> for a delay on a decision on a particular tld. I don't see any request
at this
> stage for the ICANN decision to be overridden. It may come, but it
isn't there
> yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance