RE: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jothan

Nicely stated.  I have a hard time believing that very many truly
objectionable TLDs will come forward given the costs.

Take care
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:16 AM
To: soac-mapo
Cc: Stuart Lawley; Philip Sheppard; Stéphane Van Gelder
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria


+1 Stephane (and a hearty AMEN)

To "plus-up" the discussions...

Can we build a reasonable definition around these issues to keep the
subjectivity limited to strings that might merit it so that such
subjectivity has the flexibility to achieve a clear objective on clear
cut cases but is not abused as a tool to unduly disrupt or delay
applications that are not clear cut by super-majority (the .PIZZA
example).

What is colliding with this "probably important" work is that it
potentially represents 'yet another delay' ("YAD") to the arrival of
an application round if we don't perform this work rapidly.  It comes
after years of YADs, and is likely one of the most subjective and
contentious of them.

Folks are fighting fatigue (not only emotionally but also financially
and candidly patience) as they work to come up with something
reasonable here to address "MaPO".

There are many that hold out for hope that this be the conclusion of
the "YADs" that are put in front of the new TLD program.

I don't dispute that this MaPO effort is worthy of our time and focus
because it will certainly come in handy that these definitions were
available to us when the time comes that it was needed.  I am just
concerned that we'll have crafted something that infrequently, if
ever, gets invoked.

Let's look at the protections of MaPO in a scenario that might match
what we would see in the real world.

As an exercise, let's suppose that there were potentially 100
applicants that had strings that were going to attract the attention
of controversy because they might qualify for this subjective MaPO
objection.

+++First Sieve: Applicant Pragmatism and Common Sense in the presence
of Subjectivity
As Philip and Stephane pointed out, the process has been evolved to
where the applicant will be made aware of the subjectivity being
present. The argument of common sense being that someone would
probably spend the time or effort to apply, using the logic that it
there are more practical uses of time and it would be discouraged to
essentially be putting 185k + + + (in Stuart's case with .XXX 2M+ but
that was allegedly an 'objective' set of criteria) into a shredder.

It seems that this would catch most rational minds and filter out a
majority of these strings' applicants from even applying.

I would assert that a pragmatic and reasonable outcome of the first
sieve might be that ALL contentious strings would be disinterested in
the application process in the presence of common sense.

Failing that assertion, let us look at whatever might be left over.
I'd suspect that by now that this would probably be more of a string
with a stronger emotional affinity that might over weigh practicality.
 A cause.  A passion.  There are many causes.  I am not suggesting
they are right or wrong.

+++Second Sieve:   Financial
The application fee itself is 185k.  If the applicant were attempting
to apply under some community or other lower cost program (should it
come into existence by AG v.Final).

I'd simply suggest that whatever might attempt to move past sieve 1
would have to be well financed, as 185k+++ for an application fee is
likely not the end of the costs that might be present in advocating
and seeing through the application process for such a string.

To qualify into some lower cost program, there might be some criteria
there which exclude strings that might attract the MaPO process.  All
purely hypothetical as an example anyway, but it defies logic that a
potential MaPO trigger name would qualify for a discount.  With my
experience in ICANN-land, the saying "Never say Never" comes to mind,
yet it seems to me that this circumstance is unlikely.

+++Third Sieve:  The actual MaPO objection
Out of 500 (give or take 400) applicants, I'd be astonished if there
were more than 1 or 2 if any that would hit this sieve, where an
objection has come and the process might be needed.

Clear cut and universally agreed terms by definition would probably
not have made it this far.  .KILL?  .RIOT?  These would have washed
out in earlier sieves along with anything patently offensive to a
super majority.

This seems more likely to me that these would/could be really
subjective and gray area or strings where cultural diversity plays in.
 .GUM might be illegal in Singapore, for example.  .PIZZA in
Turkmenistan.  I am deliberately avoiding using controversial examples
where religion or provincial evolution or societal attitudes provide
us 'Sensitive' / 'Worrisome' objections.

We _might possibly_ see groups that apply for these 'third sieve'
strings for the sole purpose of getting them into the reserved list so
that they're blocked from SLD registration or application by others,
such as racial slurs by anti defamation groups that are specific.  I
am not aware of one, and I have done some homework on this.  Many of
these organizations have no interest in a new TLD because they can
apply the money towards more practical benefit to their causes.

In Conclusion, my point in all of this is that I really don't want to
see delays to the entire applicant pool and the applicant process from
us over engineering something, so let's strongly factor the first two
'sieves' into our discussions.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
http://blog.jothan.com


2010/8/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> I think Stuart has a very good point here. Obviously what happened with
.XXX is not something we'd ever want to see again. Applicants do need to
know if their application would be getting any subjective treatment at any
point, instead of being evaluated on a purely objective basis.
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 31 août 2010 à 16:29, Stuart Lawley a écrit :
>
>> Referring to Bertrands message this morning, I think it is critical that
any would be applicants are made well aware of the potential subjective
treatment of any controversial application (unlike the 2004 round that was
purely objective against published criteria) and that theses "judgement
calls" will be made relatively early on in the process.
>
>
>