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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent suggestions Richard.   This is very reasonable and I support it.

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E.
<tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>