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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am also inclined toward the proposal, though I would be concerned about 
adding 'sensitive' as Stuart suggests.

In terms of the appeal, that is one of the missing pieces.

It seems that if the appeal is external, then it needs to be binding 
arbitration between the Board and some group.  What group?

Is there a possible way in which an appeal could be constructed that gives the 
ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO a means whereby they could establish the group that 
would be appellant - i.e. if at least 3 out of 4 agreed with the appeal, they 
would nominate interlocutors (e.g. 1 per SOAC) to go into binding arbitration 
with the Board.

a.


On 2 Sep 2010, at 09:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>