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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Philip,

I synthesized language from various sources in the reference materials, 
including those you cited.  The first thing I tried to determine was
an acceptable (to this WG) level of 'sensitivity' in the standard.    I tried 
to find a place in the following continuum that might work for this Group:

This application:    "Mildly agitates me.........is disconcerting to 
me.........offends me..........profoundly offends me...........Shocks ever 
fibre of my being"


Then I sought to give guidance on what it is that might elicit a reaction (per 
above).  But,  as Antony and others have pointed out,  I don't think it's 
possible to make this 'source of the reaction' 
list exhaustive.  As such, I've tried to simply give guidance to the deciders 
in terms of  'relevant laws or broadly accepted societal norms or conventions'. 
  The ultimate decision as to what profoundly offends
rests, in my proposal,  with the deciders.  I've recommended the Board be the 
deciders,  but this could be expanded or changed. 

Then I tried to balance any reaction (above) with a 'redeeming value' provision 
such that even an App that was profoundly offensive might nevertheless get 
through if it had sufficient public value.

Per your question 2. (below) my thinking is an AND, AND, AND standard,   but I 
think other approaches could work.

Per your question 3. the possible flaw in the first EU language is that it 
implies (at least to me) there is one set of society norms.  This is probably 
workable for EU but probably not workable globally.   I tried to address that 
by saying 'broadly accepted' societal norms.

The thing that may be flawed in the second set of EU language is the word 
'normal' .  We may end up in long debates about deciding what is normal.

All that said,  I am fully open to any reasoned changes to the proposal.

RT


On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 
> Richard,
> I like much of this suggestion.
> 
> Questions
> 1. Did this language come from any other source or is it your own Richard?
> "be highly and unambiguously offensive, profoundly objectionable and without
> redeeming public value will be rejected. "
> 
> 2. Is the test intended to be AND or OR ?
> ie
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> AND profoundly objectionable
> AND without redeeming public value
> 
> or
> be highly offensive 
> AND unambiguously offensive
> OR profoundly objectionable
> AND without redeeming public value
> 
> or
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> OR profoundly objectionable
> OR without redeeming public value
> 
> 3. What did you not like about the EUTM tested tests of 
> "directly against the basic norms of .. society". 
> 
> "clear offensive impact on people of normal sensitivity".
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
>