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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Very clear, Mary, thanks.
So to respond:

From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]

What I suggest is: (1) an objection (whether by a person/group/government) 
*must* be based on law;

Agreed.

and (2) if this CWG is going to recommend that an individual government can 
lodge a national law objection, this should *not* be treated the same as an 
objection that is based on principles of international law.

Agreed. Although I still don’t understand the status or purpose of these 
national law objections. Perhaps it needs to be made clearer (for the 
governments’ sake) that these objections based on national law do NOT provide a 
basis for refusing an application under Rec. 6.

Based on what we just heard on the call with Jones Day, it seems to me that:

(1) "principles of international law" has a recognized meaning whereas 
"international principles of law" does not;
(2) "ordre publique" is not the same thing as MAPO and is a more recognized and 
clearer term than "public interest";
(3) there are established international institutions (e.g. the European Court 
of Human Rights) that can, and have, determined whether or not particular 
actions are against "ordre publique"; and
(4) neither "principles of international law" nor "ordre publique" extends to 
cultural sensitivities or potentially offensive (but not illegal) activities.

Very good summary, imho

May I therefore suggest that:


(1)   as Evan has suggested, this CWG consider recommending that individual 
government objections - if recognized - be dealt with under a modified 
Community Objections Procedure rather than a standalone MAPO process?
Presumably this would mean that the government would have to be a part of the 
community targeted by the TLD, and thus would provide a more limited scope of 
objection


(2)   as I've suggested previously, that any individual government objections 
must be based on a clearly-delineated, specific national law prohibition?

Agreed.


(3)   as Richard has suggested, MAPO as a title/category be renamed as 
something more general (how does "Other Objections Based on Principles of Ordre 
Publique" sound)?

Would prefer “principles of international law”

(4) in addition to the remaining issues, at least on these few, we go on to 
consider the specific ordre publique grounds that could/should be in place 
(i.e. the 4 existing legal norms identified) and a possible appeals mechanism?