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

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

Richard

 

I also like this very much and would support it.

 

Take care

Terry Davis

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Stuart Lawley
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Richard Tindal
Cc: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

 

Richard,

 

I think this is really getting down to it and I commend you for this direct
and bold suggestion.

 

I do think the word 'sensitive" needs to come somewhere in to address the
GAC's seeming position. 

 

There will be applications that will be extremely "sensitive" without being
offensive or profoundly objectionable and the GAC , in particular, may wish
for these to be subject to the Boards supermajority review.

 

 

I do agree that this needs to be a Board call, frankly, I see no way of
avoiding that, as much as it seems clear that the preferred desire of ICANN
is to keep out of such matter by delegating to DSRP's. 

 

Subject to a tidy up or words< i would strongly support this type of
arrangement.

 

Stuart

 

 

 

 

On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:





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