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

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

So if the purpose of the quick check procedure is eliminate frivolous
complaints, a dispute filed on the basis of national law would be
considered frivolous and not allowed to proceed?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:39 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
> government objections)
> 
> 
> 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
> >>
> >
>