RE: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful questions that emerged yesterday

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

I want to reinforce Jon's last statement: " I recognize that any process that 
would deny a string on grounds related to the repugnancy of the string name 
itself is repugnant to many members of the group.  By approving Recommendation 
6, however, that ship has sailed.  Let's work hard on coming up with a 
compromise that we can live with vs. re-arguing the merits of Recommendation 6. 
 I believe that is our charter."

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:37 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Antony Van Couvering; Stuart Lawley; Bertrand de La Chapelle; soac-
> mapo@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Frank March;
> Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful
> questions that emerged yesterday
> 
> The issue is not whether "any" nation finds it patently offensive or
> repugnant [or insert whatever standard we come up with], but rather
> whether it is generally viewed as such.
> 
> One way to determine this could be for the GAC or any of its members to
> start the process by objecting to a particular string based on a
> standard with a sufficiently high bar.  That objection would go to a
> DAG-like panel, which would review the objection with a view of whether
> the concern would be generally problematic under the high standard.
> The panel would solicit views of the GAC, its members, as well as any
> other entity or person that wanted to comment.  The panel would
> research the issue and evaluate the views from any GAC members who
> commented -- as well as any other public comments -- and would make a
> determination.  If it would not be viewed as generally problematic, the
> objection would die.  If it would be viewed as such, the panel would
> provide a recommendation to the ICANN Board that the name not go into
> the root.  Such a recommendation would have to be affirmed by a super-
> majority vote of the Board.
> 
> I recognize that any process that would deny a string on grounds
> related to the repugnancy of the string name itself is repugnant to
> many members of the group.  By approving Recommendation 6, however,
> that ship has sailed.  Let's work hard on coming up with a compromise
> that we can live with vs. re-arguing the merits of Recommendation 6.  I
> believe that is our charter.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> >
> > I agree that could work.
> >
> > The only question I would have is who sets the bar, and how do they
> set it? At the root of this is my inability to believe that any panel
> or any person is able to, no matter how knowledgable they are, know
> every possible offensive term for any nation in the world.
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 31 août 2010 à 17:57, Antony Van Couvering a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> If it's ambiguous in one part of the world, then it's ambiguous, by
> definition.   This should be a very high bar.   Who could judge it?  A
> three-part process consisting of a quick look, a panel, and the Board.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 31 août 2010 à 17:35, Antony Van Couvering a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> -- Is the meaning of the string unambiguous (there are no other
> innocent uses for it)?
> >>>
> >>> Anthony, who could judge that? I can think of several words that
> might seem unambiguous in one part of the world but not in another...
> >>>
> >>> Stéphane
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >