RE: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry to say this, but we should never use 
police examples for the issues we discussing. 
This is not appropriate. Should I say, that in 
some countries, national law enforcement agencies 
are more or less OK fighting with cyber bad guys. 

I'm for the simple procedure of blocking ANYTHING
by giving the power to the individual GAC members
to object any TLD string. Then you blame country
he\she represents, not the ICANN.
It works very simple. If country is not in
GAC, it still have power to block it locally.
If country is presented - then its publically visible
and can be loudly aired. 

The function of MAPO objections cannot be in the
hands (panel) of individuals, internet gurus, religious 
leaders, superheroes, space travelers, etc. It is
a function of governments (hopefully) representing
a population of certain territory and nation.
Half of the population in this world live outside
of the tradition of "public panels" made of "experts"
even if its "wide".

--andrei

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> 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
> 
> 
>