[soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to encourage list participants to communicate your thoughts
regarding Milton's suggested edits as soon as possible.  It is
especially important that any disagreements with the proposed edits be
communicated with your rationale so that we can more easily try to find
an acceptable compromise. 

 

Please keep in mind that we want to try to reach as much agreement as
possible on the ToR next week and that we will be discussing it as our
primary agenda item in our call, which may be as early as Monday.

 

Specific details of the first call for the group will be sent out later
today.

 

Chuck

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:13 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation
Discussion

 

Chuck,

The ToR draft contains some good, solid guidance from heading "Key
assumptions" on down, although I will propose some specific
modifications.

Unfortunately, there are contradictory and unworkable elements before
that, especially in the section on the group's purpose and objective.

 

The ToR draft says, 

"The purpose is not to revisit the intended aim of recommendation 6" 

 

OK. What does Recommendation 6 say? This:

Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating
to morality and public order that are recognized under international
principles of law.

 

The ToR then says as a key assumption: 

There is no internationally agreed definition of "Morality and Public
Order".

 

OK, if there is no internationally agreed definition of MAPO, we are
indeed revisiting Rec. 6 - in fact we are completely defining it. 

This becomes even clearer when we move down to the Tor's attempt to
define an objective for this WG: 

 

The overall objective of the Rec6 CWG is to develop recommendations for
an effective objections procedure that both recognizes the relevance of
national laws and effectively addresses strings that raise national,
cultural, geographic, religious and/or linguistic sensitivities or
objections that could result in intractable disputes.

 

This seems to me to be a complete redefinition of Rec 6. More pointedly,
let me point out that in defining alleged objective of this WG you have
simply taken the objective outlined in the GAC Aug 4 statement, and
substituted it for the actual Recommendation 6 that emerged from the
consensus process. Not acceptable, sorry. To be more specific, the GNSO
process never targeted what the GAC statement calls "sensitive" strings
per se, only illegal ones. Given the inherent subjectivity of a
"sensitivity" criterion, let me also call your (and the GAC's) attention
to Principle 1 and Recommendation 9, which state, respectively: 

 

All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated
against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the
applicants prior to the initiation of the process. (Principle 1)

 

There must be a clear and pre-published application process using
objective and measurable criteria. (Rec 9)

 

There is also a potential conflict here with Principle G of the existing
gTLD policy, which states: 

 

The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom
of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized
principles of law. 

 

Indeed, when we refer to "national law" we must bear in mind that many
nations' laws contain strong protections for freedom of expression that
allow many forms of expression to offend the "sensitivities" of some
groups. 

 

In other words, Chuck, if you really want to ensure that this WG is an
IMPLEMENTATION process for Rec 6 we must ensure that any of its
recommendations do not conflict with other elements of the established
new gTLD policy. Thus, it is a non-starter to propose "implementation"
mechanisms that effectively change not only Rec 6, but also some of the
basic principles of the policy and other Recommendations. 

 

For additional proposals for minor wording revisions, see the attached
document, which has the tracking function on.

 

--MM

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:54 AM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6
Implementation Discussion
Importance: High

 

<<New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of
Reference v3.docx>> 

Here is the initial discussion draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the
community working group discussion.  Please use this list for
discussion, noting that the list is publicly archived for openness and
transparency purposes.

The plan is to have a group call next week to try to finalize the ToR
within the group so we can begin the discussion of the issues.  SO's and
AC's will also be asked to confirm support for the ToR.

Note that I have asked Glen to change the name of the list to 'Rec6 CWG'
per the draft ToR.

Chuck