Re: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful questions that emerged yesterday

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton:

Correct -- I agree that any rejection must be directly linked to generally 
accepted legal norms.

Notwithstanding the GAC letter, however, I don't think that I've heard or seen 
anyone in this working group advocating that a string should be rejected just 
because "someone somewhere" finds it repugnant -- even if that "someone 
somewhere" is a sovereign entity.  I definitely would support a principle 
against vetoes.

Thanks.

Jon


On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I recognize that any process
>> that would deny a string on grounds related to the repugnancy of the
>> string name itself is repugnant to many members of the group.  By
>> approving Recommendation 6, however, that ship has sailed.
> 
> Not entirely. There is Principle G to contend with (the one that guarantees 
> that free expression rights will not be compromised). In other words, while 
> we do have a mandate to prevent approval of TLD strings that clearly violate 
> internationally recognized norms and conventions, we do not have a mandate to 
> prevent approval of any string simply because someone somewhere finds it 
> repugnant. Any "repugnancy" argument must be linked to internationally 
> recognized norms and conventions, such as racial discrimination, child 
> exploitation, violence, etc. 
> 
> --MM
>