Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government objections)

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>]

 Chuck,

during the call yesterday, I disagreed, and I perhaps did not explain my
position correctly.
What I was basically saying is that if a sovereign government does not
like a gTLD because it considers it as potentially being the cause of a
conflict in the country, it is 100% sure that the government in question
will perform an outright block of the gTLD in question in its territory.

I therefore assert that we are wasting our time in trying to define
language to use to describe a system of objection and its processes at
application level.
If a government feels that strong about a gTLD ("potential cause of
conflict in the country"), the gTLD will be blocked point blank.
Why are we then risking engaging in what I consider ICANN agreeing or
disagreeing with this objection?

If the Board ends up allowing the gTLD to be created (and hence
rejecting the objection from the country), it risks creating an open
conflict with the country itself.
If the Board ends up rejecting the gTLD application (and hence allows
the objection from the country), it risks becoming an external
accomplice to the decision of the country. ICANN would effectively
provide its seal of approval to the objection.

I cannot warn you enough about the potential freedom of speech problem
this raises. Why would we open the door to a national problem being
extended worldwide?

I like Evan's proposal of a database of objections being created.
I do not like the Board (and/or an external evaluator) rejecting a
string on any other reason than Principles of International Law.
This is ICANN asking for trouble.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Le 07/09/2010 14:40, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>
> It seems to me that Bertrand's suggestions are helpful.  Does anyone
> disagree?  I do have one question though: what is meant by
> 'introduction process'?  Is that the 'Initial Evaluation Process' or
> something different?  We should use a term that is used in AGv4.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
>  
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:23 AM
> *To:* Marika Konings
> *Cc:* soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
> government objections)
>
>  
>
> Marika,
>
>  
>
> The third "draft recommendation" listed below says : 
>
>  
>
>     */_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./
>
>  
>
> I am not sure the DAG 4 allows this already. Or have I missed something ?
>
>  
>
> The current DAG envisages only the four specific types of objection :
> string confusion, legal rights, MaPO and community. The MaPO objection
> process is the one we are talking about here (even if renamed). But in
> the current MaPO wording, there is no possibility, as far as I
> understand, for a particular government to voice an objection that is
> not linked to a general objectionability (according to principles of
> international law), but related to its own public interest concerns
> (ie :"sensitivities" to take the GAC wording).
>
>  
>
> If the group considers, as Konstatinos rightly put it, that :
> governments "have to be heard and make their case and the potential
> impact it might have", we may need to clarify the conditions for such
> an objection by one or a few governments.  
>
>  
>
> So I suppose that what we actually mean is the following :
>
>  
>
>     /Draft recommendation : The Applicant Guidebook should allow
>     individual governments to file an objection based on specific
>     national public interest concerns./
>
>  
>
> On a side note, the wording of the second sentence could be improved
> by saying something like : 
>
>  
>
>     /Individual governments may, in the last resort, block by law TLDs
>     raising public interest concerns at the national level, but they
>     have to be heard in the introduction process and be provided the
>     opportunity to make their case and describe the potential impact
>     the TLD might have./
>
>  
>
> In other words, the idea is to provide the avenue for a fair hearing
> of governments concerns in the introductory process, recognizing that
> if the string is approved nonetheless, they will retain in any case
> the possibility to block.
>
>  
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>  
>
> Best
>
>  
>
> Bertrand
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gac mailing list
> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
> the Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
> Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html