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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I said, it is  not the intent of the objector that matters to me, but the 
criteria under which the quick check will operate.

I think we should not allow for national law to be a valid reason under the 
quick check rules.

I.e. only reasons bearing on international law should count at that point.


a.

On 8 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
>> 
>