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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

Agreed in your section 4.

for this type of proposal, which i believe to be sound, to have any chance of 
flying it is the GAP between " offensive, objectionable and sensitive" that 
needs to be investigated and I agree that the GAC, as the group who started 
this with their 4 August letter needs to provide the group with more guidance 
for an acceptable solution to be negotiated. Otherwise , to quote the 4 August 
letter we will have "intractable disputes' ;-)





On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> It's a good proposal -- especially in that it puts clear and direct 
> responsibility on the ICANN Board.
> 
> But I do have some concerns:
> 
> 1) Scalability: It wouldn't take too many such cases happening at once to 
> totally overwhelm the Board
> 
> 2) Upon what will the Board make its decisions? Do objectors and the 
> applicant get to state their cases directly to the Board? Or will everyone 
> rely on staff reports which have been criticised as being too opaque in their 
> creation and potentially subject to bias?
> 
> 3a) Why are "individual GAC members" singled out for attention beyond that of 
> any other objector? Is that just a detail that can be tweaked with, or a core 
> component of the process?
> 
> 3b) Is there a geographic scope? We have already discussed that something 
> that may be unambiguously offensive in one part of the world may be perfectly 
> fine in another. Does such diversity immediately infer ambiguity (that would 
> therefore invalidate the objection)? Must something be *globally* 
> unambiguously offensive to be rejected? If not, what is the criteria for 
> sufficient levels of offence?
> 
> 4) There's a very high bar for rejection -- which I see as a Good Thing. But 
> does it really address the stability threat of individual countries blocking 
> locally-offensive TLDs? This proposal may be acceptable enough to succeed -- 
> and I could easily support it with minor tweaks -- but I'm not sure that it 
> really confronts the concerns in the GAC statement. We could approve this 
> process and eventually still end up back here in YAD re-designing, if it 
> doesn't address -- for instance -- the (IMO substantial) gap between the 
> "highly and unambiguously offensive" and the merely insensitive. I guess we 
> need more GAC input on this.
> 
> - Evan
>