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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Even if we can find duelings attorney to say that 'my notion has merit'/'my 
notion does not have merit',
I still think it is a good idea for the Board to get some external advise 
before making their decision.

Apologies, but i grew up in a house of lawyers.  i know that every legal 
discussion has it opposite legal arguments until you get to supreme courts, 
national tribunals, panels of supreme jurists, and international courts of 
justice etc... - where some "hyper-respected" jurist gets to decide which 
interpretation they like best.  In this case, I say get that kind of advice 
before having the Board make a decision.

I am not sure why you would object to getting serious device. I still argue for 
leaving the _decision_ to the Board, I just think it should be a well informed 
Board, and I think there should be a formalism to define at least one method by 
which that Board becomes well informed.  A standard and public way.

a.




On 31 Aug 2010, at 21:27, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I don't think there is any merit to Avri's legal concerns. 
> If ICANN can get sued for making a decision, getting advice from a bunch of 
> "hyper-respected" jurists won't make a bit of difference.
> Chuck, I don't agree that this opens a promising path. 
> 
>> What controls the board in many cases, after their duty to do the right
>> thing, is their fear of being sued.  But since the basis for a suit is
>> determined by US and California law, this makes the US law, and its
>> prejudices, the driving condition. This leaves a gap for any country or
>> issue that is not US.
> 
> Insofar as this argument is valid, it applies to any and every decision the 
> Board makes. MAPO neither worsens nor improves those issues. 
> 
>> For example things that might be barred by the US terrorism rules might
>> be perfectly reasonable TLDS.
> 
> Terrorism is an area where there is a surprising degree of international 
> consensus among most developed and even developing nations, both on who is 
> designated a terrorist organization and on international cooperation measures 
> (in banking, financial regulation and tracking, extradition, etc) to oppose 
> them. If the U.S. has sanctions against an organization there is a very good 
> chance that other countries do as well. (think of Al Qaeda)
> 
> And for those hypothetical organizations or entities that are _only_ targeted 
> by the U.S. (can you name one?), if they apply for a TLD string and for some 
> reason it is illegal for ICANN to give it one, outsourcing an advisory 
> decision will...not...make...any...difference - it will still be illegal for 
> ICANN to do. 
> 
> I note that ICANN is currently not barred from maintaining ccTLDs for 
> sanctioned countries and countries deemed sponsors of terrorism (Iran, No. 
> Korea, etc.) 
> 
> Could someone with some real legal expertise in this area weigh in on this 
> before our chair buys this argument and promotes it? 
>