Re: [soac-mapo] lawsuits

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

......caveat,  I'm not actually applying for POO as it's a shitty string



On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> 
> I've seen the issue of lawsuits mentioned a couple of times on the list.  As 
> a layperson I thought only (some) Governments could be sued for censorship.  
> I thought a private US corporation could not be.
> 
> Could you clarify the basis under which ICANN might be sued if, say, I 
> applied for .POO and ICANN denied it on morality grounds.
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>