Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:03:32 -0400
Maybe it is exactly what you said, in which case I've just made the point
again. I do think it useful to see Suzann'e words. My intent is just to get
this base concept across -- I don't think another telling of it hurts.
On Jul 11, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> That IS exactly what I said. If there is a difference between what I said and
> what Sene said, please point it out to me.
> Here's the gist of Sene's comment:
>> "So it is -- the more we thought about it, the more we realized that
>> this was a very bizarre, if you will, basis for ICANN to create a
>> foundation for an affirmative decision when it's used in the treaty as
>> an exception. So, from our perspective, that tells us -- confirms our
>> understanding that there is no international law on morality and
>> public order. There is no internationally agreed definition of what
>> morality and public order might encompass. It is determined on a
>> country-by-country basis."
> To summarize, MAPO explicitly recognizes that there _are no_ globally
>> applicable standards of morality and public order! It is an exceptions
>> process that restricts the applicability of a global agreement within
>> a national jurisdiction.