Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If my reading is correct that the use of the term 'incitement' in DAG4 is 
associated with criminal law, then yes we should apply 'incitement' the way it 
is interpreted in criminal law. otherwise, as I stated previously, we will be 
stretching law beyond its intended purpose.

Thanks

KK


On 08/09/2010 13:39, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Konstantinos.  So are you saying then that you think you think
the standards for incitements under criminal law should apply in the new
gTLD process?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:36 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
>
> No Chuck, you didn't misunderstand. The term 'incitement' is used both
> in criminal and civil law. however, the standard of proof is
different.
> In criminal legal practice, law has the tendency to require higher
> standards, because of the sanctions that criminal procedures carry;
> this is not the case for civil matters where sanctions are not as
> strict.
>
> I sort of fail to see however the direct relevance of civil law in our
> case and I my reading of incitement in DAG4 is associated with
criminal
> law. So far we have been talking about incitement in relation to
> terrorism, violence and/or child pornography amongst others. These are
> criminal issues.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. This, at least, has been my
> understanding so far.
>
> Thanks
>
> KK
>
>
> On 08/09/2010 13:07, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I thought that Carroll stated that this was not a case of criminal law
> but rather civil law and that the use of "incitement" was well enough
> defined under civil law?  Did I misunderstand?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> > Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:51 AM
> > To: Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this Philip - I will be looking out for such a
> registration
> > :)
> >
> > Again though I am not convinced about this. According to criminal
> law,
> > incitement requires, amongst others: action, intent and
encouragement
> -
> > I don't see how we can ensure through a single string - even the one
> > that appears to be against me - that all these requirements are met.
> > Even Carroll yesterday suggested that for incitement determinations,
> > context is something that we cannot possibly overrule. Criminal
law's
> > incitement was surely not drafted with gTLDs in mind, but at the
same
> > time let's not stretch the law in an effort to fit novel issues,
such
> > as gTLD strings. We did that in the trademark arena and look where
it
> > led us.
> >
> > KK
> >
> > On 08/09/2010 09:14, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> > "For me, no string is sufficient enough to incite people to do
> > anything"
> >
> > How about killkonstantinoskomaitis ?
> > leading to registrations such as hang.killkonstantinoskomaitis
> >
> > Not that I propose spending my USD 185k on this : )
> > P
> >
> >
> >
>