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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Avri. Different words mean different things to different
people. A semanticist with cross cultural expertise should be able to offer
a opinion on the validity of an objection.

Sivasubramanian M



On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> hi,
>
> Yes, it seemed to me that linguists would be useful.  Though i was
> referring mostly to  semanticists, a sub-field of linguistics dealing with
> meaning - I expect people did not believe it was a real specialty and
> thought i was making it up.
>
>
> q..
>
>
> On 21 Sep 2010, at 13:27, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>