Re: [soac-mapo] Comments on 4.2 and 5.4

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Evan's reasoning is solid and cannot be contested.

But in my humble opinion, the kind of MAPO objection that would cause
anything above a mild 9-day wonder of a kerfuffle I will give even money
shall be one long on 'emotion' and disagreeably short on things amenable to
abstruse legal interpretation of international law.  [Admittedly, the legal
approach is the likely avenue - and the dodge! - to respond. For to
paraphrase a wily old Texan of a trial lawyer "when the facts are against
you, plead the law.  And when the law is against you, plead the facts."]

It is for this reason I suggested that the range of expertise of this expert
panel, however raised, to be expanded and should not be limited to lawyers
[jurists] but good others.  I [belatedly] saw where - I think - Avri
suggested linguists in context.

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> On 21 September 2010 09:29, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello
> > I am concerned about the implication of Recommendation 4.5: "The
> contracted
> > advisors will be expected to have specific expertise in interpreting law
> > instruments of public international law ....." which would invariably
> lead
> > to a situation where the advisors are Lawyers from Law firms engaged by
> > ICANN at a thousand dollars an hour, which would necessitate equally
> > expensive counter measures on the part of the TLD applicant.
> > If this is a 'morality and public order' issue, by whatever name we call
> it,
> > why do we emphasize that the Advise needs to come from Lawyers and Law
> > firms? This is very Californian.
> > Sivasubramanian M
>
> As a non-Californian and non-lawyer, I believe there is value to this
> approach.
>
> A major problem with the original MAPO scheme was that it enabled
> objections based on very subjective criteria; one community's isolated
> sense of offence was sufficient for a serious objection. In evolving
> the status quo into something more acceptable, we required some kind
> of objective standard by which objections can be measured, and the
> clearest (and most transparent) standards are laws and treaties.
>
> If a string isn't objectionable enough to be the subject to action
> according international law and treaty, it isn't objectionable enough
> for ICANN to consider blocking it. It is not ICANN's duty to create
> de-facto treaties on morality; instead it must track and stay
> consistent with existing law and treaty.
>
> - Evan
>
>