Re: [soac-mapo] Int'l vs nat'l law (was: Third "draft recommendation" (individual government objections))

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It may therefore be clearer to maintain the distinction between an objection 
based on international law criteria and one based on national law prohibitions. 
The former goes through the what-used-to-be-known-as-MAPO dispute resolution 
process (dependent on narrow, specific categories - TBD - recognized under 
principles of international law), while the latter goes through some form of 
[highly?] modified Community Objection process.
 
I'm afraid I can't join the call today but will try to catch up with the 
discussion later.
 
Thanks,
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: 
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the 
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> 


From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To:soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/8/2010 8:43 AM
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
>> 
> 





As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu