Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
Yes, just to be clear, NCUC has been against MAPO since Day 1. Personally, I think it is time to recognize the inherent conflict in trying to find universally accepted standards of morality and public order, which simply do not exist. As the the US Govt Rep. said a number of times in Brussels, all the legal experts she has consulted say this is unworkable and will get ICANN sued. The only way to avoid these suits is to allow the blocking of tlds to occur by countries who are going to block anyway. Adding an additional layer of blocking (at the global level) only increases the censorship and creates greater liability for ICANN.
If the act of a person registering a domain name violates the law, there are legal mechanisms to appropriately deal with it. All the bodies of law that governs people's actions have not changed because ICANN issues new domain names. We don't really have a problem that needs a "solution" of new rules governing morality and public order. These rules already exist - they just cannot be applied in a 1-size- fits-all model. We just need to recognize the inherent conflict as such, allow legitimate law making institutions to address the issue, and move on to introducing new gtlds quickly.
Best, Robin On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 13 July 2010 17:08, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:No-one has a strenuous objection to what's in DAG4 except the GAC. Anthony,The At-Large statement on new gTLDs, endorsed unanimously at the Summit during the Mexico City Meeting (and still maintained as its official stance), was quite clear:We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of objections based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.In my first message in this thread I stated that "[At-Large] generally took the position that the MAPO process as-is should be scrapped". How does that not constitute "strenuous objection"?I offered a personal comment here that some (small) allowance for MAPO could be mentioned in the Independent Objector role (it already exists in theory but the DAG could make it explicit). But be very clear that At-Large is wholeheartedly and emphatically against an explicit MAPO mechanism the DAG. From what I have been reading on this list it appears that NCSG -- or at least some of its prominent members -- also oppose MAPO in the DAG.So I'd say that it's quite inaccurate to say that "no-one has a strenuous objection". Indeed, I have personally witnessed some *very* strenuous objection -- in Mexico, in Nairobi, in Brussels, and here on this list. Maybe nobody noticed it (or cared) until the GAC signed on, but stakeholder opposition to MAPO has been around for a long time.Evan
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx