Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How about a slightly revised version of #6 as follows?:

"Strings must not be contrary to legal norms relating to morality
and public order to the extent regulated and within the limits of
enforceable principles of international law.  Examples of these 
principles include but are not limited to the Paris Convention 
regarding trademarks and principles from the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political rights such as freedom of expression rights."
I believe the above wording would address the concern that individual national bans on 
particular language won't be applied to the entire world, but they would still apply to 
that jurisdiction.  This will allow nations to "regulate morality" within their 
own jurisdictions, but ICANN wouldn't apply these national standards globally.

Thanks,
Robin



Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Just to add a bit on the drafting process, which I hope may
> help.
>
> I'm going through this latest draft right now, and have found
> that it would be much clearer to just drop off the portions that
> we agree to delete, instead of writing something like [DELETE
> [etc.], etc.] We all have the earlier version and could compare
> if we want.
>
> What I've found useful in the council-amended wording today June
> 7 for recom. 3 & 6 is that where trademark provisions/rights are
> explicitly mentioned, freedom of expression ones will too, and
> vice versa, because the experience shows that rights deriving
> from those two principle may often and precisely conflict in the
> use of communication media. In that regard, maybe the ammended
> recom. 6 can be Ok since none of those two is precisely
> mentioned, but at least recom. 3 should mentioned both as
> discussed on the call earlier.
>
> The other maybe cosmetic/semantic concern I raised on the call
> (and I understood Bruce & Philip, at least, agreed with that) is
> that "Strings [may be or] not be contrary to legal norms
> relating to morality and public order, etc." but I am not sure
> we can require that Strings be not contrary to legal norms
> relating to freedom of expression. Just because the possible
> issue with freedom of expression is the forces, or authorities,
> that may restrain it, but not that one instance of expression
> (here the strings) can be contrary to FoE in the first place. I
> believe the same holds even if we replace FoE by UDHR.
>
> What about the following version (addressing just the "cosmetic"
> issue) that I can suggest, or something very close?
>
> Strings must not be contrary to legal norms relating to morality
> and public order, to the extent granted and within the limits of
> recognised or enforceable international principles of law.  
> Examples of these principles include but are not limited to
> those found in the Paris Convention, the Universal Declaration
> of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
> Political rights.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki 
>
> --- Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Thanks for sending this out so fast Liz.
> >
> > 3 points on the new draft:
> >
> > Rec. #3 and #6:
> > We had agreed to specifically mention "freedom of expression"
> > as a type 
> > of interest to protect under the UDHR and ICCPR.
> > Rec #3.
> > I thought we weren't going to keep the GAC 2.3 privileging
> > trademark 
> > owners and IGOs since we added a mention to both the trademark
> > interest 
> > and the free expression/human rights interest in the body of
> > Rec#3.
> >
> > Rec #8.  
> > Are we now saying that the application will automatically be
> > "rejected" 
> > based opposition?  The previous language was "deferred or
> > otherwise 
> > rejected" so we seem to be dropping the "deferred" and going
> > right to 
> > "rejected" with this change.  I don't think that was what was
> > intended.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz Williams wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Colleagues
> > >
> > > Thank you very much on your continued work and support.
> > >
> > > Please find attached an overview document which sets out in
> > >      
> > ORANGE  
> >    
> >
> > > the text from today's meeting.
> > >
> > > Could I ask you to please RESPOND to me as quickly as
> > >      
> > possible with  
> >    
> >
> > > your indication of support for EACH of the recommendations
> > >      
> > as they  
> >    
> >
> > > stand?  I assume that everyone supports the principles and
> > >      
> > the  
> >    
> >
> > > implementation guidelines as they stand.  They will be used
> > >      
> > by the  
> >    
> >
> > > implementation team to prepare the presentations on the  
> > > Implementation Plan for the San Juan meeting.
> > > Could you please respond in the following way:
> > >
> > > Recommendation 1 -- support
> > > Recommendation 2  -- need more work
> > > Recommendation 3 -- support and so on
> > >
> > > If you do this, I will be able to finalise significant
> > >      
> > sections of  
> >    
> >
> > > the Report and provide assistance to the implementation team
> > >      
> > on a  
> >    
> >
> > > large body of work that depends upon the completion of
> > >      
> > policy  
> >    
> >
> > > recommendations.
> > >
> > > I will also be able to advise you on the small elements that
> > >      
> > need  
> >    
> >
> > > further discussion which will guide the sessions we put
> > >      
> > together for  
> >    
> >
> > > the San Juan meeting.
> > >
> > > Kind regards.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > PS  Note that the cut off for Constituency Impact Statements
> > >      
> > is COB 9  
> >    
> >
> > > June Europe time -- thanks to the ISPs, BC and RyC for their
> > >      
> > statements.
> >    
> >
> > > .....................................................
> > >
> > > Liz Williams
> > > Senior Policy Counselor
> > > ICANN - Brussels
> > > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > > +32 497 07 4243 mob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> >    
>