Re: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like the suggestion of a list, if it would be something that the GAC
would do in a proactive manner.

I also liked Antony's 'Quicklook' suggestions.

I have some concerns that a list, such as GLOS would probably be met
with some resistance.

Candidly it has been my perspective that the GAC gravitates towards a
preference to have the ability to poke at whatever comes along rather
than define what they'd like to poke at.   If there is a flexibility,
in all cases the preference is that it is their flexibility.

The same challenge exists in the intellectual property realm with the
creation of a list, which brings to mind another potential obstacle to
a GLOS...  The existence of an explicit list in and of itself might
create the inference that something not on that list is somehow
approved and ok (otherwise it would have been included, right?).

Anything that can be done to create some reasonable objectivity is
needed, and I admire that you're thinking in terms of how to add more
objectivity.

Something that creates balance to subjectivity as well, for areas
where there might be intense subjectivity (ie my favorite example
.PIZZA) such that it could be contrasted and reviewed in its context
within the objective of global availability.



-Jothan


Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 September 2010 12:22, Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> A list will not work for the reasons mentioned by Avri.
>> There is little chance that the list will be inclusive enough to include
>> all derivatives and many would be submitters will be too squeamish
>> (understandably) to submit many of the outrageous terms linked to subject
>> like Pedophilia etc.
>
> .... but not too sqeamish to be the subject of an $185K TLD proposal?
>
> Nevertheless, it's a reasonable point. Perhaps a window could be offered,
> just in case, that would give objectors a small period of time (say, 30
> days) from the time an application is made to register appropriate entries
> in GLOS before the report is given to the applicant. This could happen in
> parallel to other early components of the application (such as its checking
> against the Clearinghouse).
>
> This way, objectors would not necessarily have to think of every possible
> disgusting string in advance -- just ones being proposed. It has the
> downside of not letting applicants know in advance all the possible
> objections to their string before they apply -- however they don't know that
> under the current regime either. On the positive side, such a window would
> also address Avri's concerns about the total size of the database getting
> too big since many orgs may simply choose to wait until they see an
> objectionable application to register their objection in GLOS.
>
> - Evan
>
>