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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure Carroll said otherwise. When he was speaking about incitement (in 
the criminal context) he was always referring to the difficulties that proving 
incitement has without looking also at the context. This to me meant that a 
mere string could not possibly provide definitive answers as to whether 
incitement was substantiated. I might be mistaken here, but I don't think that 
Carroll provided such a black and white answer when it comes to incitement.

KK


On 08/09/2010 13:53, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>