Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:42:55 -0400
On 11 July 2010 23:49, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, IIRC. I think we also suggested that some of this could also be handled
through the community-objection process, though there was no elaboration.
> 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?
As it is, the IO appears to be given fairly broad leeway to launch an
objection, under the realm of 'protecting the public interest' -- that is,
it's possible that a TLD application could meet all the technical
requirements but whose existence could still be seen against the public
interest based on unforeseen issues. Examples given are a community seeing a
TLD created improperly in its name but without enough funds itself to
object. Other objections could be in the realms of untraditional forms of
"name protection" that go beyond formal trademarks such as Common Law Marks
in the Commonwealth and aboriginal "common wisdom".
So far the flexibility offered the IO falls into the realm of "I'll know it
when I see it" kind of judgement, so guidelines appears to have been
deliberately loose. We could specifically add a mandate to the IO to object
to strings that are considered
to be repugnant a "broad community of nations" (using some definition of
Let me give it some thought.
One other option raised during the GAC/At-Large meeting was inspired by the
trademark clearinghouse. There could be an advisory process through which
TLD applicants would know -- in advance of approval -- whether their string
was likely to be blocked by countries once implemented. Based on that
advice, a TLD applicant could withdraw or continue, knowing ahead of time
that their string could cause problems being seen in some jurisdictions. An
advisory process rather than an objection one preserves free expression,
while ensuring that applicants (and their investors) are aware of national
obstacles that may lie ahead.
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?
The idea was to follow the conventional objection process for the IO,
without special morality comparisons being made. The main question posed,
IIRC, is "does the IO's objection validly affirm that the TLD string's
existence harm the global Internet 'public good', its safety or stability?
That's a much higher burden of proof than for the the current MAPO
objection, which focuses on the level of insult or objection of the