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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
Yes, I will keep track of the recommendations as they emerge.

Margie

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Aug 31 15:31:33 2010
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful questions that 
emerged yesterday


Would anyone on the list oppose a recommendation stating that no
individual entity should be able to veto a string?  If so, please speak
up. Otherwise, we will make that one of our recommendations.

Margie - Would you please keep track of possible recommendations once
they begin to take shape and their status in terms of support and/or
opposition.  If there are no objections to this one, it might be the
first one that has taken enough form to include; of course, the wording
can be refined.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful
> questions that emerged yesterday
> 
> Milton:
> 
> Correct -- I agree that any rejection must be directly linked to
> generally accepted legal norms.
> 
> Notwithstanding the GAC letter, however, I don't think that I've heard
> or seen anyone in this working group advocating that a string should
be
> rejected just because "someone somewhere" finds it repugnant -- even
if
> that "someone somewhere" is a sovereign entity.  I definitely would
> support a principle against vetoes.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> 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.
> >
> > Not entirely. There is Principle G to contend with (the one that
> guarantees that free expression rights will not be compromised). In
> other words, while we do have a mandate to prevent approval of TLD
> strings that clearly violate internationally recognized norms and
> conventions, we do not have a mandate to prevent approval of any
string
> simply because someone somewhere finds it repugnant. Any "repugnancy"
> argument must be linked to internationally recognized norms and
> conventions, such as racial discrimination, child exploitation,
> violence, etc.
> >
> > --MM
> >