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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

+1

As I asked a while back.  If an objection from a government is based on local 
law, by whatever form that law is created, is not a request for a 
ban/censorship/veto, then what is it?

As i understand the practice of civilized nations it is not to enforce the 
preferences of one nation on another without a specific treaty or other 
instrument to make it international law.  If that national preference called 
law, is not something of which the international community of nations can be 
convinced, why should ICANN have to serve it?

We have made a real point of not changing the GNSO recommendations.  Those 
recommendations are very clear is stating that International Law is the 
criteria, not national laws.

a.

On 7 Sep 2010, at 23:06, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> > I guess in that sense all objections (not just Recommendation 6 ones)
> > are 'requests to veto' from the Objecting party  (although in the
> > Objection process a possible outcome is some form of agreement
> > between the two parties).   
>  
> OK, then you have conceded my point and proven to both Chuck and Bertrand 
> that my concerns were not based on a misunderstanding of what was proposed.
>  
> If you encourage governments to register “requests to veto” based on _their 
> own_ national law, you are telling them that they can, possibly, give their 
> own local laws global effects using ICANN as their instrument. That’s wrong. 
> It doesn’t matter whether the bar is high or low, it’s completely contrary to 
> any notion of bounded, legitimate rule by governments who are accountable to 
> and representative of their own people. Neither the government nor the people 
> of country A have the right to dictate what the people of country B cannot 
> do. No regulation without representation. Further, this leads to a rash of 
> contradictory claims – as I have had to say again and again, in many cases it 
> will be illegal in one jurisdiction not to suppress something and illegal to 
> suppress it in another.
>  
> We have, I think, now revealed as false the claim that “individual government 
> objections” are just a way to give governments (those poor, helpless, 
> unrepresented things) a “hearing”. This is not about “hearing,” it’s about 
> “doing.”
>  
> --MM
>  
>  
>