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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

 

I think I understand your argument but I am not convinced by your
conclusion.  You are correct that any dispute that is filed will
undoubtedly be intended to eliminate (veto) an applied-for string but I
do not think it then follows that we are giving every
person/organization veto power.  The GNSO Final Report clearly gave
individual governments standing to object but we certainly did not
intend that to be giving them authority to veto a new gTLD and I believe
that in this WG we have agreed that no one entity should have veto power
except for the Board.

 

Are you saying that an individual government should not be able to file
an objection?  If so, that would be contrary to the GNSO final
recommendations.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:07 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
government objections)

 

> 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