RE: [soac-mapo] Objection title
- To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Objection title
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:26:42 -0400
Thanks Olivier and Evan. I personally think that we should avoid the use of
the word ‘community’ with regard to Rec6 objections because it could cause
confusion with the Community Objection process.
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:13 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Objection title
On 9 September 2010 19:30, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ordre Public can be translated in English as "Public Policy", and not "Public
Order" since the latter might have connotations principally of a criminal
According to our telephone discussions, this appears not to be the same thing
as "General Principles of International Law" either, since objections based on
a government's evaluation of a word likely to cause local disruption would also
be received by the DRSP.
I therefore suggest the translation of "Ordre Public", such as "Public Policy".
I like Olivier's reasoning.
And if, as has been suggested, substantial parts of the process are to be
combined with community-based objections, the collective title could be simply:
"Community and Public Policy Objections"
"Public Policy" is IMO inclusive of "incitement" and "General Principles of
International Law", but it also includes the possibility that objections will
be submitted if a group believes that a string is grossly obscene. (It may not
succeed in getting blocked, but at least the string is "on record" as being
offensive to someone.) Also, it nicely accommodates instances in which a
government is objecting on behalf of one of its internal communities.
Another possible title, brief yet descriptive, is "Government and Community
Objections", making general reference to the source rather than the purpose of