RE: [soac-mapo] Incitement (was: "string only" - clarification)

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

Hi,
 
I believe that Carroll agreed that incitement - in most (though not all) 
international treaties - required more than mere promotion. He did, however, 
say that the context might well be relevant in considering whether there is, in 
fact, incitement in any particular case. 
 
Of course, the "incitement" must itself relate to a particular act that is to 
be incited. There are therefore 2 elements required: (1) the act of incitement; 
and (2) such incitement must be intended to cause another person (or persons) 
to commit the particular "second" act in question. As Konstantinos points out, 
the acts currently mentioned in the DAG that are "incitable" (I think I just 
made up that word :) are acts that constitute criminal activity in probably 
just about every jurisdiction.  
 
Cheers
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: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"Konstantinos Komaitis" <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" 
<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "soac-mapo" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/8/2010 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification

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





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