Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:08:53 -0700
No-one has a strenuous objection to what's in DAG4 except the GAC. The GAC's
issue was explored earlier on this list:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-mapo/msg00015.html (Milton Mueller's
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-mapo/msg00017.html - my attempt (I said
Milton had it a "bit wrong," but basically we were agreeing with each other)
It's open question as whether that's "really" why the GAC (more specifically
the US Gov't) doesn't like it, but that's what they say. My note (link above)
quotes Suzanne's Sene's formulation of the objection.
On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Lets try to be clear about why this group exists and focus a little.
> Objection: morality.
> Mechanism: individual or the Independent Objector (IO) (charged with the
> Determination: a panel established by an independent provider under ICANN
> Grounds: Losely described in DAG4.
> As a group we therefore should determine first:
> a) do we support the concept at all of a morality objection?
> if No, move to kill it.
> if Yes, seek to improve the grounds or the mechanism/determination.
> Background: National trade mark offices make this sort of determinations
> themselves all the time. Sometimes rejections are appealed. The authority and
> appeal has its roots in the national law. ICANN's problem is the lack of a
> similar legal basis, hence the call to international law (which was created
> different purposes).
> My own take is:
> a) the existence of the system will deter most cases of obviously
> TLDs, so the objection will not be needed.
> b) when it does the issue is likely to be questionable and so must be
> by a panel listening to arguments.
> So, what exactly is wrong with the DAG4 proposal in principle?
> (lets tackle implementation in due course).