Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:57:52 +0100
Anthony and all,
I think that's a very sensible suggestion. This is what I understood to be the
objective of this group - ie, to engage in some sort of dialogue with those GAC
members who were interested in stepping forward, in an effort to move this
issue along. Otherwise we are just rehashing old arguments and issues and
flailing around a bit. [That being said, I personally have found it very useful
to get a refresher course on the history so I don't wish to undermine any of
the discussion that has taken place so far].
In any case, if any of us are able to draw in any GAC members, we should stress
that this is - as I understand it - an informal discussion group only.
Otherwise there will be some reticence on the part of the GAC to join in.
Director of Policy
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 14 16:38:01 2010
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
I would be surprised if GAC joined this group in any substantive way; they will
want to reserve to themselves the ability to reject anything this group comes
up with, but without them I worry that we may be wasting our time. GAC has
shown no compunction about rejecting something they don't like, even while
refusing to come up with anything to take its place. They have effectively
arrogated a veto power to themselves, and they will reject the output of this
group as well if they don't like the result.
Does anyone have decent relations with the GAC to determine if they will join
us? They mentioned the idea positively in Brussels, in fact they complained on
several occasions that they were not involved earlier in formulating policy. I
realize that including the GAC is a double-edged sword, but if we are concerned
to produce something that doesn't meet with another flat rejection, it would
wise to get them to participate now. I would also say that it is the US
government leading the objections, and therefore that is the particular player
whose involvement we need.
On Jul 14, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
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
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
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
National law enforcement has failed to stop Internet crime, so it is a
And as said previously:
a) the existence of a method 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 (which will address both string and
So, isn't the DAG4 proposal about right?
The only action then is best endeavours to have a wise panel.