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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I don't think there is any merit to Avri's legal concerns. 
If ICANN can get sued for making a decision, getting advice from a bunch of 
"hyper-respected" jurists won't make a bit of difference.
Chuck, I don't agree that this opens a promising path. 

> What controls the board in many cases, after their duty to do the right
> thing, is their fear of being sued.  But since the basis for a suit is
> determined by US and California law, this makes the US law, and its
> prejudices, the driving condition. This leaves a gap for any country or
> issue that is not US.

Insofar as this argument is valid, it applies to any and every decision the 
Board makes. MAPO neither worsens nor improves those issues. 

> For example things that might be barred by the US terrorism rules might
> be perfectly reasonable TLDS.

Terrorism is an area where there is a surprising degree of international 
consensus among most developed and even developing nations, both on who is 
designated a terrorist organization and on international cooperation measures 
(in banking, financial regulation and tracking, extradition, etc) to oppose 
them. If the U.S. has sanctions against an organization there is a very good 
chance that other countries do as well. (think of Al Qaeda)

And for those hypothetical organizations or entities that are _only_ targeted 
by the U.S. (can you name one?), if they apply for a TLD string and for some 
reason it is illegal for ICANN to give it one, outsourcing an advisory decision 
will...not...make...any...difference - it will still be illegal for ICANN to 
do. 

I note that ICANN is currently not barred from maintaining ccTLDs for 
sanctioned countries and countries deemed sponsors of terrorism (Iran, No. 
Korea, etc.) 

Could someone with some real legal expertise in this area weigh in on this 
before our chair buys this argument and promotes it?