Re: [soac-mapo] lawsuits

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Robin,

I've seen the issue of lawsuits mentioned a couple of times on the list.  As a 
layperson I thought only (some) Governments could be sued for censorship.  I 
thought a private US corporation could not be.

Could you clarify the basis under which ICANN might be sued if, say, I applied 
for .POO and ICANN denied it on morality grounds.

Many thanks

Richard


On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Yes, just to be clear, NCUC has been against MAPO since Day 1.  Personally, I 
> think it is time to recognize the inherent conflict in trying to find 
> universally accepted standards of morality and public order, which simply do 
> not exist.   As the the US Govt Rep. said a number of times in Brussels, all 
> the legal experts she has consulted say this is unworkable and will get ICANN 
> sued.  The only way to avoid these suits is to allow the blocking of tlds to 
> occur by countries who are going to block anyway.   Adding an additional 
> layer of blocking (at the global level) only increases the censorship and 
> creates greater liability for ICANN.  
> 
> If the act of a person registering a domain name violates the law, there are 
> legal mechanisms to appropriately deal with it.  All the bodies of law that 
> governs people's actions have  not changed because ICANN issues new domain 
> names.    We don't really have a problem that needs a "solution" of new rules 
> governing morality and public order.  These rules already exist - they just 
> cannot be applied in a 1-size-fits-all model.   We just need to recognize the 
> inherent conflict as such, allow legitimate law making institutions to 
> address the issue, and move on to introducing new gtlds quickly.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 July 2010 17:08, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  
>> No-one has a strenuous objection to what's in DAG4 except the GAC.
>> 
>> 
>> Anthony,
>> 
>> The At-Large statement on new gTLDs, endorsed unanimously at the Summit 
>> during the Mexico City Meeting (and still maintained as its official 
>> stance), was quite clear:
>> 
>> We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of objections 
>> based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business 
>> being in (or delegating) the role of comparing relative morality and 
>> conflicting human rights. 
>> 
>> 
>> In my first message in this thread I stated that "[At-Large] generally took 
>> the position that the MAPO process as-is should be scrapped". How does that 
>> not constitute "strenuous objection"?
>> 
>> I offered a personal comment here that some (small) allowance for MAPO could 
>> be mentioned in the Independent Objector role (it already exists in theory 
>> but the DAG could make it explicit). But be very clear that At-Large is 
>> wholeheartedly and emphatically against an explicit MAPO mechanism the DAG. 
>> From what I have been reading on this list it appears that NCSG -- or at 
>> least some of its prominent members -- also oppose MAPO in the DAG.
>> 
>> So I'd say that it's quite inaccurate to say that "no-one has a strenuous 
>> objection". Indeed, I have personally witnessed some *very* strenuous 
>> objection -- in Mexico, in Nairobi, in Brussels, and here on this list. 
>> Maybe nobody noticed it (or cared) until the GAC signed on, but stakeholder 
>> opposition to MAPO has been around for a long time.
>> 
>> Evan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>