[soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: "soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:05:25 -0400
Agree with W. Drake's understanding of the origin and purpose of this group.
My view (and that of NCUC from the beginning) was that MAPO as constructed by
staff was and is unworkable. Robin Gross may want to dig up the numerous memos
we sent to staff back in the 2007 time frame and add them to Richard Tindal's
list of source materials. As the US govt's GAC rep explained in Brussels, MAPO
is grounds for a national _exemption_ to international recognition of names, it
is not a global, uniform standard for deciding which names are or are not
acceptable. Since there is no global standard for morality and public order, we
should simply drop that term (whether we like to call it MOPO or MAPO).
However, rather than "replacing" MAPO with something else, I am hoping that
this group can come to an agreement that we simply don't need anything to
replace it. This does not mean that anything goes in the top level name space.
It simply means that there already are agreed international conventions and
standards, coupled with ICANN procedures, that meets whatever legitimate
concerns are out there.
As several people pointed out during the GAC meeting, there is an objection
process when names are associated with communities or linguistic groups.
There are also internationally agreed conventions against racial and gender
discrimination which provide a positive basis for excluding certain names.
Let us also not forget that freedom of expression guarantees are part of the
enumerated international agreements that must be respected by this process.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:51 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents
> We all volunteered for this group.
> Do we have a charter?
> Do we have a mission?
> Are we here to provide arguments that the MAPO solution in DAGv4 is
> sufficient and shouldn't be messed with?
> Or do we have some other purpose?
> I admit I was rather shaken up when GAC resurrected the subject with the
> lines that they did not understand the solutions and had not been
> consulted. I know I consulted them at the time, I can't say anything
> about why they don't understand it now.
> So while I think it might be useful to try and explain why the DAGv4
> MAPO solution is sufficient, I do not know if that is our mission.
> I should note that my arguments for DAGv4 being both necessary and
> sufficient are my own and not supported by NCSG. We have not polled on
> it lately and I expect we would be of mixed viewpoint. At the time
> that the new GTLD recommendations were voted on, NCUC was very much
> against the MAPO recommendations and made no secret of it.
> Oh yeah, one other question: do we have wiki space to start stashing the
> reference materials?