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

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

I certainly agree with that Milton.

 

Chuck

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 11:58 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
government objections)

 

Chuck:

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 

I think I understand your argument but I am not convinced by your
conclusion.  You are correct that any dispute that is filed will
undoubtedly be intended to eliminate (veto) an applied-for string but I
do not think it then follows that we are giving every
person/organization veto power. 

 

Lets hope not. 

 

The implication of your claim is that you need to carefully define what
an "objection" means and under what conditions it could lead to a string
application being denied. 

 

For example, if the objection is basically a "notice of intent to block
nationally," due to a contradiction with national law, I could accept
it, along the lines Mary described. In that case, the government is
conceding that there is no international issue and that the string could
go ahead. They are simply notifying ICANN and the applicant that their
string probably won't be accessible in their country. 

 

If the government's objection is raising an issue of conflict with
recognized international law, then it's ok, but a) it doesn't have to be
a national government to raise it, and b) we must explicitly recognize
that national governments have no special status in pointing out these
contradictions (it could also be made by a human rights group, an
international organization, or whoever). 

 

What we want to avoid is giving governments the impression, or the
reality, of their objection being a demand to the Board to censor a TLD
string because they don't like it or it contradicts their national law. 

 

Can we agree on that?

 

-MM