[soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

All,

Here is a proposal (four concepts) for discussion.    

I've tried to keep it as close as possible to the framework of the current DAG, 
 while addressing some of the concerns raised:

1.  Re-title this portion of Module 3  ‘Other Objections’  (rather than 
‘Morality and Public Order Objections’).    

I think it’s very hard to find the right words to categorize this type of 
objection, and I don’t think the title adds value to the process.   What really 
matters is the standard we decide, and the mechanism that makes use of the 
standard.   I don’t think we need a specific title.     

2.  Change the fourth element in the current, four part Objection standard (in 
DAG 3.4.3) to the following:

"An application may raise national, cultural, geographic, religious or 
linguistic concerns. If objected to, such applications will be reviewed by the 
ICANN Board which will consider the string, the applicant and the intended 
purpose as well as any comments regarding the application, including comments 
from the GAC, individual GAC members and other ICANN SO/ACs.  

Applications found by the Board, in its view, to be highly and unambiguously 
offensive, profoundly objectionable and without redeeming public value will be 
rejected.  In making this determination the Board may also seek opinion from 
the Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) regarding any relevant laws or 
broadly accepted societal norms or conventions".

Note:   I am proposing here that any objection based on the fourth standard go 
directly to the Board, rather than through the DRSP (though the Board may seek 
the DRSP's opinion).     

3.  Require the Board to Supermajority (two thirds) approve any rejection of an 
application.     

I propose that this supermajority requirement apply to rejections based on any 
of the four standards,  not just the 4th one (above).

4.  Appeal mechanism

A right of appeal process should be included


RT