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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some support seems to be building for this suggestion.  Is there anyone who 
opposes the general approach?  If so, please comment and explain your concerns. 
 And I encourage suggestions for improvements of the proposal.

Thanks Richard for putting this on the table.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:27 PM
> To: Richard Tindal
> Cc: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >