Re: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that this proposal makes sense and contributes substantially to our 
discussions. Some comments from my point of view.


 1.  Other Objections - although I think that changing the names will certainly 
create less problems, I think that this is too general. Anything can fall under 
'other objection'. Perhaps we can add something like "other objections related 
to issues of human rights or criminal activities".
 2.  I am not sure I feel comfortable with just the ICANN Board being involved 
in making recommendations. Although I feel that the Board should be involved in 
the whole process, I also feel that there needs to be at the side an 
independent review panel that also makes its determinations. A long time ago, 
before this group was officially formalized, I proposed the following in the 
mailing list: a 'review panel', limited to only provide recommendations about 
names. The panel will be comprised of experts in international/criminal law 
(jurists, academics, etc), will have to be divergent to correspond to issues of 
geopolitics, religion, etc and will provide recommendations. The idea is here 
more or less with what Richard proposed for a DRSP, but I would like to see us 
moving away from the ICC or similar idea.
 3.  Appeal: I am really much in favor of having an appellate process in place 
as this will certainly contribute towards building trust in the whole system 
and will legitimize the process. I can only think of two bodies that could 
undertake such a function and which have the authority to make such decisions - 
the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal court 
(depending on the basis of the objection - human rights vs criminal activities).

Apologies if this all sounds too legal, but I am trying to think of ways that 
we can have such objections whilst conforming with basic standards of law.

Best

KK


On 01/09/2010 22:33, "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

All,

Here is a proposal (four concepts) for discussion.

I've tried to keep it as close as possible to the framework of the current DAG, 
 while addressing some of the concerns raised:

1.  Re-title this portion of Module 3  'Other Objections'  (rather than 
'Morality and Public Order Objections').
I think it's very hard to find the right words to categorize this type of 
objection, and I don't think the title adds value to the process.   What really 
matters is the standard we decide, and the mechanism that makes use of the 
standard.   I don't think we need a specific title.
2.  Change the fourth element in the current, four part Objection standard (in 
DAG 3.4.3) to the following:
"An application may raise national, cultural, geographic, religious or 
linguistic concerns. If objected to, such applications will be reviewed by the 
ICANN Board which will consider the string, the applicant and the intended 
purpose as well as any comments regarding the application, including comments 
from the GAC, individual GAC members and other ICANN SO/ACs.
Applications found by the Board, in its view, to be highly and unambiguously 
offensive, profoundly objectionable and without redeeming public value will be 
rejected.  In making this determination the Board may also seek opinion from 
the Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) regarding any relevant laws or 
broadly accepted societal norms or conventions".
Note:   I am proposing here that any objection based on the fourth standard go 
directly to the Board, rather than through the DRSP (though the Board may seek 
the DRSP's opinion).
3.  Require the Board to Supermajority (two thirds) approve any rejection of an 
application.
I propose that this supermajority requirement apply to rejections based on any 
of the four standards,  not just the 4th one (above).
4.  Appeal mechanism
A right of appeal process should be included

RT