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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Seconding Avri and Siva. Good point to help understand the
"sensitivities" actually.

B.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")