Re: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,


But isn't  string, meaning & applicant"   a backdoor way of saying expected 
content without using those words?

a.

On 7 Sep 2010, at 08:07, Stuart Lawley wrote:

> i think Richard has encapsulated the argument well but also the group needs 
> to consider the "string" vs" string, meaning & applicant" argument to 
> complete the picture.
> 
> for Example: what if the IKA applies for .IKA or even .KKK (see www.kkkk.net 
> for details of the IKA)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
>> All
>> 
>> I think we're making progress.   Removing the explicit phrase 'morality and 
>> public order' is helpful, and I think by sharpening the description of 
>> principles of international law we're making the process clearer and more 
>> effective.  Also, having a high voting threshold for rejection makes sense 
>> to me as I think the failsafe (when in doubt)  position should favour 
>> approval.
>> 
>> Where I don't think we're making progress, at least in writing, is 
>> addressing the GAC concern over 'controversial' strings.   As discussed 
>> earlier today, these are strings that may not reach the level of 
>> international principles  - but which are nevertheless significantly 
>> offensive to some.   Community objection might be used against some of these 
>> strings but not all of them  (as community objection requires the string to 
>> contain a group 'identifier').    
>> 
>> The challenge then is controversial strings that are not addressed by 
>> international principles.   I understand there is a natural tension between 
>> the desire (by some) to limit these strings and the recommendations in 
>> Implementation Guideline G ('freedom of expression').   I'm wondering if 
>> there might be some middle-ground words that can partially satisfy both 
>> sides of the debate.  Could terms like 'demeaning', 'inflammatory', 
>> 'intentionally and provocatively offensive' or 'without redeeming public 
>> value'  provide some tools to reasonably challenge strings?      
>> 
>> I like the progress we're making but I don't think we've yet addressed one 
>> of the key GAC concerns.  If we can address that concern, without harsh 
>> limits on freedom of expression, I'd like to do so.  
>> 
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Please find below the draft recommendations that came out of today’s CWG 
>>> Rec 6 WG meeting. For those on the call, please let me know if I’ve missed 
>>> or misstated anything. For those of you that were not on the call, if you 
>>> do not agree with one or more of these draft recommendations, please share 
>>> your objection and reason for objection with the mailing list. 
>>> 
>>> USE OF MORALITY & PUBLIC ORDER TERMS 
>>> 
>>> Draft Recommendation: Remove the references to Morality & Public Order in 
>>> the Draft Applicant Guidebook as far as these are being used as an 
>>> international standard and replace them with the term ‘Public Order 
>>> Objections’. Further details about what is meant with ‘Public Order 
>>> Objection’ would need to be worked out to ensure that it does not create 
>>> any confusion or contravene other existing principles such as principle G.
>>> 
>>> INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW 
>>> 
>>> Draft Recommendation: Give serious consideration to other treaties to be 
>>> added as examples (see list circulated by Marilyn Cade) in the Draft 
>>> Applicant Guidebook, noting that these should serve as examples and not be 
>>> interpreted as an exhaustive list.
>>> 
>>> Draft Recommendation: Clarify that in the current Draft Applicant 
>>> Guidebook, Individual governments are able to file an objection based on a 
>>> national concern. At the end of the day, national governments will block 
>>> what they don't like, but they have to be heard and make their case and the 
>>> potential impact it might have.
>>> 
>>> Draft Recommendation: Clarify terminology by using Principles of 
>>> International Law instead of International Principles of law to make it 
>>> consistent with what GNSO intended (possible implications to be further 
>>> discussed in meeting tomorrow with Jones Day lawyer)
>>> 
>>> HIGH BOARD TRESHOLD FOR APPROVING / REJECTING
>>> 
>>> Draft Recommendation [For further discussion on tomorrow’s meeting]: To 
>>> reject a string for which a recommendation 6 objection has been filed, 
>>> there should be a higher threshold of the board to approve a string / there 
>>> should be a higher threshold to reject a string / a sub-set might require a 
>>> higher threshold to approve.
>>> 
>>> If you cannot participate in tomorrow’s meeting in which Carroll Dorgan 
>>> from Jones Day will participate, please share any questions you would like 
>>> to ask him with the mailing list so these can be put forward if time allows.
>>> 
>>> With best regards,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>> 
>