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

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

And I think that Carroll felt otherwise.  So you disagree with his
assessment, correct?  That is fine, I just want to be clear.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:44 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
> 
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>