[soac-mapo] RE: List Update

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
It is good to have GAC on board and I agree with what you have proposed 
procedurally.

However, in substantive terms I wish to raise some caution regarding your 
suggestion that we are merely "improving the implementation" of the MAPO 
recommendation. The US government has (in legally correct terms) called the 
whole construct into question by pointing out that MAPO provides a basis for 
states to _except_ themselves from recognizing trademarks or permitting 
information flows. There is no generally accepted standard of morality and 
public order that can be used on a positive basis to determine which TLD 
strings are or are not acceptable.

Therefore the task we face is more complex that you suggest. This must be 
reflected in the terms of reference.

--MM


From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:01 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] List Update


I want to thank everyone who has joined this list and give you an update on how 
this list and its discussion will hopefully progress going forward.

I had an excellent call with Heather Dryden and Cheryl Langdon-Orr yesterday 
for the purpose of making sure that each of us as chairs of our respective 
organizations are on the same page and to map out a plan for moving this 
forward as a community effort.  Note that both of them have now subscribed to 
this list.

In follow-up to one topic covered in our meeting, Heather sent the following 
message to Cheryl and I:  "As part of GAC advice to DAGv4 to be issued end of 
July/very early August, the GAC anticipates recommending the creation of a 
cross-constituency working group to develop revisions to DAGv4 regarding MoPo 
implementation.  A cross-constituency working group would need brief, clear, 
terms of reference to guide its work.  The GAC intends to include advice on the 
terms of reference, as part of this advice on DAGv4."

The three of us decided that it would be best if this list got a fresh start 
after the GAC advice is submitted.  Our intent is not to minimize the 
discussion that has occurred so far but rather to hold off for a brief period 
until others are able to join and thereby allow them to participate as well.  
Note that the list archives will still contain the discussion that has occurred 
to date so anyone who wants to will be able to review it.  And please note that 
members from other ICANN communities, including but limited to the ccNSO, will 
be encouraged to participate.

My understanding from Heather is that the intent of the GAC advice is not to 
change the GNSO New gTLD MAPO Recommendation but rather to possibly improve the 
wording of it and the implementation plan for it.  In addition, I do not 
believe that there is any intent to cause delays, but rather, by working 
together we can all contribute in a timely manner to an improved applicant 
guidebook with regard to MAPO.  We don't anticipate a long process for 
developing terms of reference and hopefully the GAC advice will give us a 
starting point in that regard.

In the meantime, I ask each of you to be patient while we wait for the GAC 
advice, which we will use as one catalyst for list discussion.  A first task 
for the group when the list discussion begins again will be to develop the 
terms of reference so please be thinking about that with the understanding that 
the purpose will not be a rehashing of arguments we have all heard and made in 
the past but rather a cooperative effort to improve the implementation of the 
MAPO recommendation in a way that fits our diverse community appropriately.

I encourage Heather and Cheryl to comment if I have misstated anything or to 
add additional thoughts as they see fit.

Thanks to everyone for your cooperation and willingness to work on this effort.

Chuck Gomes