Changes

==Comments on ICANN Policy Issues==

==Comments on ICANN Policy Issues==

The NCUC like any other Constituencies is active in sharing its comments and recommendations to different ICANN Policy Issues. On June 12n 2007, NCUC submitted its statement regarding the GNSO New TLD Committee’s Draft Final Report On The Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains ([[gTLD]]) and opined that the draft report consist of flaws and it is a "recipe for irregularity, discretion and uncertainty in the new domain name space." The Constituency argued that the introduction of morally acceptable and not contrary to public order as a  string criteria is troubling and expressed its strong opposition to this proposal and pointed that it is beyond [[ICANN]]'s technical mandate. NCUC also rejects the expansion of the role of [[ICANN Staff]] and outside expert panels in evaluating the criteria that are non technical, financial or operational. The Constituency recommended that the role of ICANN Staff should be limited only in identifying if a domain name applicant met the operational technical and financial requirements objectively and should not evaluate on the basis of morality or other public policy objectives.Furthermore NCUC also opposed the "substantial opposition" criteria for rejecting a domain name because it is a bad policy for the public and for ICANN. The Constituency argued that the substantial opposition criteria is incompatible with the internationally recognized Freedom of Expression guarantees.<ref>[http://ncuc.syr.edu/policydocuments/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf Comments from ICANN Noncommercial Users Constituency]</ref>

The NCUC, like any other Constituency, is active in sharing its comments and recommendations to different ICANN Policy Issues. On June 12th, 2007, NCUC submitted its statement regarding the GNSO New TLD Committee’s Draft Final Report On The Introduction of New [[gTLD|Generic Top Level Domains]] and opined that the draft report consists of flaws and it is a "recipe for irregularity, discretion and uncertainty in the new domain name space". The Constituency argued that the introduction of morally acceptable and not contrary to public order as a  string criteria is troubling and expressed its strong opposition to this proposal and pointed that it is beyond [[ICANN]]'s technical mandate. NCUC also rejects the expansion of the role of [[Category:ICANN Staff|ICANN Staff]] and outside expert panels in evaluating the criteria that are non technical, financial or operational. The Constituency recommended that the role of ICANN Staff should be limited only to identifying if a domain name applicant met the operational, technical, and financial requirements objectively and should not evaluate on the basis of morality or other public policy objectives. Furthermore, NCUC also opposed the "substantial opposition" criteria for rejecting a domain name because it is a bad policy for the public and for ICANN. The Constituency argued that the substantial opposition criteria is incompatible with the internationally recognized Freedom of Expression guarantees.<ref>[http://ncuc.syr.edu/policydocuments/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf Comments from ICANN Noncommercial Users Constituency]</ref>

On April 1, 2010, NCUC also commented regarding the Uniform Rapid Suspension ([[URS]]) System and the Trademark Clearing House Proposals that were revised by ICANN Staff. The Constituency cited that both documents represent the main deliberations and conclusions of GNSO's Special Trademark Issues ([[STI]]) Team, however the Constituency found that some specific issues doesn't substantially coincide  with the GNSO-STI recommendations. It also noticed that although ICANN Staff tried to consolidate the opinions of the internet community regarding the issues but they believed that staff comments were added to the policy and pointed that it is arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal. NCUC also noticed some typographical errors on the documents.<ref>[http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-comments-on-the-uniform NCUC Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension System and Trademark Clearing House Proposals]</ref>

On April 1, 2010, NCUC also commented regarding the [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) System and the Trademark Clearing House Proposals that were revised by ICANN Staff. The Constituency cited that both documents represent the main deliberations and conclusions of GNSO's [[STI|Special Trademark Issues Team]], however, the Constituency found that some specific issues doesn't substantially coincide  with the GNSO-STI recommendations. It also noticed that although ICANN Staff tried to consolidate the opinions of the Internet community regarding the issues but they believed that staff comments were added to the policy and pointed that it is arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal.<ref>[http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-comments-on-the-uniform NCUC Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension System and Trademark Clearing House Proposals]</ref>

==References==

==References==