Re: [soac-mapo] Clarifying Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of Issues/Recommendations)

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I think you raised a really important point below,  so I'd like to reemphasize 
it.    We're dealing with highly subjective issues across all the threads 
examined by this Group.  Given that, I don't think its necessary or even 
desirable to come up with one solution for every issue.    We're giving 
guidance to the Board and the community.  I think it's a reasonable path for us 
to identify, analyze and present a range of options for each issue.

Take the 'Title of this Objection' discussion (just as an example).  I think we 
agree that 'Morality and Public Order' should be replaced,  but in terms of a 
solution I think its quite acceptable for us to identify various possible 
alternatives,  with a brief assessment of each.  

In areas where we don't see a clear solution I'd rather that we provide a range 
of alternatives along with views on the pros and cons of each.

RT 


On Sep 9, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It seems to me that Richard may have suggested some language that could be 
> used in other places where there is not substantial agreement on a 
> recommendation: “Instead of recommending specific changes we offer our views 
> and ask for the current language to be re-assessed in light of those views.” 
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Clarifying Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary 
> of Issues/Recommendations)
>  
> Thx.  
>  
> In that case,  the problem I have (and I suspect a problem of others in the 
> Group who aren't law professors)  is that I don't know who's right.  I know 
> ICANN has employed
> high powered legal talent to come up with the current language.    I don't 
> know if you're right or they're right.
>  
> Also, as a lay person,  I think a TLD string could, on its own, result in 
> violence -- but that's just my opinion.
>  
> Is this an acceptable compromise  ---  Instead of recommending specific 
> changes we offer our views (per your note) and ask for the current language 
> to be re-assessed in light of those views?
>  
> RT
>  
>  
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
> 
> 
> Sure - the proposal for "incitement" was to replace, that for "promotion" was 
> to remove.
>  
> Hope that helps!
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:
> Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> To:
> soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 9/9/2010 6:50 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [soac-mapo] Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of 
> Issues/Recommendations)
> 
> OK,  maybe it didn't read as well as I thought.
> 
> I saw it simply a statement of various views - and not as a hard 
> recommendation.
> 
> Mary - could you clarify?
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Did I misunderstand the statement/recommendation drafted by Mary?  I
> > didn't understand that it recommended that the term 'incitement' be
> > removed but rather that the term 'promotion' be removed: " The term
> > "promotion" should be removed from the AGB. (Mary Wong)"
> > 
> > If we removed both terms, wouldn't we be eliminating all three
> > categories?  Is that the intent?
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> >> Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:21 PM
> >> To: Mary Wong; soac-mapo
> >> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of
> >> Issues/Recommendations)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks Mary for this. I agree - 'incitement' is an unfit term for this
> >> process and is used erroneously. I support the recommendation for the
> >> term to be removed.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> KK
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 09/09/2010 23:01, "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 
> >> I agree, and note that Richard used the phrase "Principles of Ordre
> >> Publique" in an earlier email. I've adopted it in the attached draft
> >> recommendation on the use of the term "incitement" (and thank
> >> Konstantinos for starting the draft and dredging up the various emails
> >> concerning the issue!)
> >> 
> >> I've also used the same font as Margie, in the hope it will facilitate
> >> editing and insertion.
> >> 
> >> Something on Quick Look to follow, shortly .... (I hope :)
> >> 
> >> Cheers
> >> Mary
> >> 
> >> Mary W S Wong
> >> Professor of Law
> >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH
> >> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage:
> >> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available
> >> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> >> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >> 
> >>>>> 
> >> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, soac-mapo <soac-
> >> mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: 9/9/2010 5:55 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Summary of Issues/Recommendations
> >> Dear Margie,
> >> 
> >> Thanks for this, it is really helpful.
> >> 
> >> One point - I think we decided at this point to use the term 'ordre
> >> publique' and abandon the term 'public interest' when it comes to
> >> objections. I think 'ordre publique' came out of our discussion with
> >> Carroll and it is something that Mary also suggested (?).
> >> 
> >> Thanks
> >> 
> >> KK
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 09/09/2010 19:33, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Dear All,
> >> 
> >> Please find enclosed for your review suggested language that
> > summarizes
> >> the topics discussed and the proposed recommendations.  Although some
> >> of you are working on language to insert in this document, I thought
> >> this might serve as a starting point for you.
> >> 
> >> It is very difficult to glean all of the details from the email list,
> >> so please accept my apologies if I misstated the principles or the
> >> recommendations.   Also,  there are areas where I was unable to sketch
> >> an outline of the issue or proposed recommendation, such as the Quick
> >> Look Procedure, Timing of Rec6 Dispute, and Guidebook Criterion 4.
> >> Hopefully volunteers can assist in describing the issue and proposed
> >> resolution.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Margie
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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 <http://law.unh.edu>
> >> 
> > 
> >
> 
>  
>  
> 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
>