Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's the thing with string and use, though - there are at least three, 
increasingly expansive, ways to look at MAPO objections (even as currently 
stated in DAGv4): just the string, the string plus user, and the string plus 
use thereof/thereafter (Bertrand mentioned this during the GAC meeting as well).
 
For those who do not think it either wise or feasible to remove MAPO entirely 
from the new gTLD application process, are you comfortable with a contextual 
examination (even if it is a panel comprised of "eminent jurists") in view of 
ICANN's mandate?
 
As Evan (I believe) noted, there is no one from the GAC in this SOAC group at 
the moment. In Brussels, they seemed at a loss as to whether and if they could 
and should come up with an alternative recommendation to the Board. I just 
don't see ICANN reversing course and agreeing to remove MAPO at this juncture 
unless the GAC pushes for it (and as Avri and Philip have said, the GAC may 
actually end up requesting something worse). That's partly why I think we as a 
group should request that the consultation papers from the "eminent jurists" 
consulted by ICANN be released to us, to figure out at least whether the 
legal/normative issues that some of us have raised on this list were addressed.
 
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
To:<soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 7/14/2010 4:47 AM
Subject: [soac-mapo] charter and mission


I must say I am with Avri on this.

Instinctively, I see the need for some ICANN-based method to block an
objectionable name.
National law enforcement has failed to stop Internet crime, so it is a poor
alternative.

And as said previously:
a) the existence of a method will deter most cases of obviously objectionable
TLDs, so the objection will not be needed.

b) when it does the issue is likely to be questionable and so must be determined
by a panel listening to arguments (which will address both string and use).

So, isn't the DAG4 proposal about right?
The only action then is best endeavours to have a wise panel.

Philip







Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership