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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this direction makes a lot of sense, since it bypasses trying to define 
the undefinable and while  defining criteria for the Board to use, does not try 
to "objectify" or quantify what will always be a subjective decision.  It also 
places the onus on the Board but allows for input (not that they wouldn't get 
it anyway).  I like the supermajority, which preserves the presumption that 
applications will pass.

I would say that the appeal mechanism, which I believe is needed, should have 
some meat on it, such as the grounds for appeal -- e.g., that there is a 
redeeming public value...

Antony


On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:33 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