Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Graham Chynoweth <gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>]

In addition to the concerns with the banned list Jon notes below, I would add 
such a list would, overtime, certainly become both over and under-inclusive (if 
it wasn't from the outset). More specifically on this point I mean that, if 
there ever were a 'seven dirty words' style list, eventually that list would 
come to include words that were no longer 'dirty' (e.g., as George Carlin 
taught us, it used to be that you couldn't say 'piss' on American television) 
and not include words that had become 'dirty' (I'll let you use your 
imagination here). 

Thanks , 
Gray 

Graham H. Chynoweth 
General Counsel & VP, Business Operations 
Dynamic Network Services, Inc. 
1230 Elm Street, 5th Floor 
Manchester, NH 03101 
(p) +1.603.296.1515 
(e) gchynoweth@xxxxxxx 
(w) http://www.dyn.com 

Confidentiality Statement 

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this electronic 
message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use 
of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify Dynamic Network Services, 
Inc. immediately at +1.603.668.4998 or reply to gchynoweth@xxxxxxx and destroy 
all copies of this message and any attachments. This message is not intended as 
an electronic signature. 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Nevett" <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> 
To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Tindal" 
<richardtindal@xxxxxx>, soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 7:55:36 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission 



I can't speak for Antony, but I think that the approach he was taking issue 
with was the one Evan mentions directly below and not the IO process. If not, I 
will. I think that the IO objection process would be easier to implement than a 
banned list or a pre-application advisory process. First, a list would require 
a whole lot of needless debate about names that no one would have applied for 
during the process. Second, a pre-application advisory would not be able to 
take into account the applicant, the string, and the intended use. If it did, 
it would give these applicants an unfair advantage over other applicants that 
might be in a grey area on other issues (e.g. trademarks on the top level, 
string similarity, etc.). Finally, we shouldn't be too worried about applicants 
(and their investors) who apply for a name that they know will be highly 
controversial. They obviously will know that going in and there already is a 
partial refund available in DAG4 if they see that their application got caught 
up in an objection process and they choose not to proceed. 


Thanks. 


Jon 







other option raised during the GAC/At-Large meeting was inspired by the 
trademark clearinghouse. There could be an advisory process through which TLD 
applicants would know -- in advance of approval -- whether their string was 
likely to be blocked by countries once implemented. Based on that advice, a TLD 
applicant could withdraw or continue, knowing ahead of time that their string 
could cause problems being seen in some jurisdictions. An advisory process 
rather than an objection one preserves free expression, while ensuring that 
applicants (and their investors) are aware of national obstacles that may lie 
ahead. 







On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:49 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: 





On 12 July 2010 03:28, Antony Van Couvering < avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: 



The issue with this approach is that the string itself may not be the issue -- 
I would contend that in most cases it would be the combination of the string 
and the applicant. There is nothing wrong with the string "boy," for instance. 
But there's a big difference between .boy operated by the Boy Scouts and .boy 
operated by NAMBLA. 

On the contrary, that's the strength of the At-Large proposed approach. By 
putting such issues in the hands of the Independent Objector and offering 
sufficient leeway, context can matter as much as the literal string itself. 
Unanticipated problem applications can be objected to "on behalf of the public 
interest" by the IO rather than depending upon some external body (who? The Boy 
Scouts? A government? The Catholic Church?) to object to a NAMBLA-run registry 
".boy". 

(Of course none of this prevents NAMBLA from purchasing second-level domains 
under .boy, but that's a different issue :-P) 

Under a similar scenario mentioned in one of the meetings, even everyone's 
favourite example of ".nazi" might be acceptable if it was proposed purely for 
academic study. But this, like the NAMBLA one, is a rhetorical device rather 
than a real-world proposal that will have to be confronted. That's the nice 
thing about having an IO process that's not tightly restricted ... that when 
real-world problem applications come up, we have a process suitably able to 
deal with it. 

(In more recent versions of the DAG, certain undesirable restrictions were put 
on the IO that would inhibit the role's effectiveness in performing such a 
duty. However we can recommend changes that remove such limitations.) 

- Evan