Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Evan,

Thanks for this.

If I understand you correctly the preferred At Large position is the removal of 
MAPO provisions from the DAG and a slight expansion of Independent Objector 
powers to deal with "outrageous (and universally-repugnant)"  strings.   

Could you take a stab at what sort of guidance language the Independent 
Objector (IO) might be given to help him/ her make that judgment?   Nothing 
we'll hold you too here,  but it seems that even with the At Large approach 
there has to be some sort of articulated standard.    What sort of guidance 
would the IO be given?   

Also,  did At Large suggest what might happen after the IO decided a string was 
outrageous or universally repugnant?    Did the string then go somewhere else 
for decision -  and if so who made that decision?

Thx

RT



On Jul 11, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10 July 2010 15:23, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> What specifically makes it unworkable?
> 
> 
> 
> [ Note: on this list, unless stated otherwise I am speaking in a personal 
> capacity, though I am chair of the At-Large gTLD working group that studied 
> the MAPO issue from an Internet end-user POV. ]
> 
> 
> The At-Large discussions on the issue had a somewhat different -- and more 
> simplified -- approach, but seemed to come to similar conclusions as Milton 
> suggests.
> 
> We took the position that MAPO as proposed:
> 
> 1) Would effectively turn ICANN into an international treaty body when it is 
> not (and should not in our opinion be) regarded as having either authority or 
> expertise in that role. (We have also been seeing this kind of "quasi-treaty 
> feature creep" happening in trademark issues).
> 
> 2) Puts ICANN in the position of judging comparative morality. In MAPO's 
> first DAG mention, ICANN was to ajudicate morality claims itself; in later 
> DAGs it was to sub-contract the role, but in effect ICANN would still 
> maintain responsibility for judging one party's morality (ie, the 
> proponent(s) of a TLD) against another (objections to that TLD). ICANN would 
> be repeatedly asked to judge whether the rights of a community to express 
> itself are "superior" to those who find the very nature or name of the 
> community abhorrent. No matter which side "wins", the loser will be 
> rightfully insulted, and there's no internationally-recognised appeal process 
> provided.
> 
> According to my recollection, At-Large took the view that ICANN has neither 
> the competence nor the authority to make (or delegate) ethical judgements 
> that directly affect its stakeholders. (It has a hard enough time making and 
> enforcing technical ones!) The objection-based MAPO process is seen as 
> designed to create a new bureaucracy within ICANN to perform a function it 
> has no right to be doing. In the hands of ICANN staff, MAPO appeared to take 
> the form of an expansionist make-work project that would entail substantial 
> expense, larger ICANN payroll and significant legal exposure, without really 
> resolving anything (because countries would never relinquish the sovereign 
> right to block whatever they want regardless of ICANN action).
> 
> We generally took the position that the MAPO process as-is should be 
> scrapped, and that minor mods to the DAG sections on community-based 
> applications and the role of the independent objector could be used to deal 
> with the most outrageous (and universally-repugnant) examples of 
> objectionable strings. This, paraphrased, constituted part of the formal 
> At-Large Summit statement on the DAG, a statement that was perceived to be 
> completely ignored by staff (that didn't even acknowledge its receipt, let 
> alone provide rationale for rejection).
> 
> As the DAG has not changed substantively on MAPO since Mexico, neither has 
> the At-Large position.
> 
> - Evan
>