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

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

It seems to me that all objections would have the intent of trying to
block the application, at least under the currently proposed procedures.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:27 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
> government objections)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess my issue is the basis of the objection, and what is considered
> valid in the quick look.
> 
> If national law is a valid criteria for objection, then it passes
quick
> look. So while a national gov't may have standing to object, does
their
> national law count as a relevant reason to carry that objection beyond
> quick look?
> 
> If they are paying a fee to object, and objecting as a fair waring
that
> they plan to block the string or warning their nationals of dire
> consequences, that is ok as it is an internal issue.  But it should be
> considered invalid in the quick look for reason 4-below.
> 
> But any of the reasons requires some ICANN action, even if only quick
> look rejection.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Sep 2010, at 08:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
> >
> > An objection by a sovereign government can be one of many things,
and
> > these functions are not mutually exclusive:
> >
> > 1) A public declaration that an application is undesirable and the
> use
> > of the proposed string is counter to the domestic public interest;
> >
> > 2) A request to the applicant to reconsider/amend/withdraw (possibly
> > escalating from "request" to "demand" if the applicant is a resident
> > of -- or does business in -- that country)
> >
> > 3) A public warning that the country may block the string if
approved
> >
> > 4) A request to ICANN to block the application from succeeding
> >
> >
> > Of these, only #4 requires intervention by ICANN in the application
> > process. Indeed, if the objection is based on politics (ie, to
> appease
> > an angry population), the real intent of the objection may be
nothing
> > more than to fulfil #1.
> >
> > The mere provision of an objection process that allows national (or
> > even regional) complaints to be fully aired and "on the record" --
> > with the tacit acknowledgement that the complaint is insufficiently
> > grounded to cause ICANN to block it globally -- may serve a valuable
> > purpose. This is even so for objections that have no chance (and
> maybe
> > no intention) of resulting in a blockage of the application.
> >
> > - Evan
>