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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[replying to parts of the discussion that were off-list, redacted here]

It's not hard to criticize the GAC, but let's give them some credit when it's 
due.  It is a very good sign that some GAC members are participating here;  I 
am probably not the only one who would consider this a largely meaningless 
exercise without their involvement.  My quibble would be that there's not 
enough of it. 

At least some members of the GAC are sensitive to the criticism that they just 
"throw rocks" at ICANN proposals.  The input from some of their members is an 
excellent debut to their stated desire (expressed in Brussels) to express their 
ideas and concerns at an earlier stage in the policy-making process.   As 
frustrating as it is to many of us, the GAC is not constituted in such a way 
that they can easily delegate some members to "make a deal."   They have to 
follow their protocol, but the mere participation of GAC members, regardless of 
their official status, is a vast improvement.

The GAC is not the only one who has noted that the "morality and public order" 
module is deeply flawed.  I made some of the criticisms now being aired in this 
group as early as October 2008, when I was much younger: 
http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/10/30/icanns-morality-memo.  Although I 
don't actually believe anyone is going to waste $185K on a patently offensive 
TLD string, and was therefore willing to put up with ICANN's awkward 
wallpapering on this issue, I can hardly blame the GAC, which has a wider view 
than mine, for noting the underlying cracks in the structure. 

It's also fair to note that the GAC has flagged their concerns with the 
"morality and public order" module as early as Nairobi.

There is plenty to criticize the GAC about, but much of it is historical and 
pointless to rehearse.   We shall see if it behaves (as it has at times in the 
past) as a semi-informed impediment to progress.  I am encouraged by the 
much-improved quality of many of the GAC members, who have shown themselves 
willing to engage in thoughtful discourse and to tackle the issue with a view 
to solving it, instead of using it as a reason for delay. 

What we can do -- and what we have come a long toward doing, thanks to Richard 
and others -- is to come up with a proposal as quickly as possible, and then 
push the GAC to consider it quickly and to provide timely and specific 
feedback, instead of blinking in surprise at their briefing papers at ICANN 
meetings as if they've just emerged from hibernation, only to produce a generic 
rejection letter weeks later.  And we should expect that those GAC members who 
have shown themselves willing to engage with the rest of us will have gained 
some added credibility in that body when it does finally arrange itself around 
a table or a teleconference speaker-phone. 

Antony


>>> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Antony Van Couvering
>>> <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Agree
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 - it sets the bar much higher.
>>>>> 
>>>>> KK
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 02/09/2010 20:46, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The formulation should be conjunctive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> be highly offensive
>>>>> AND unambiguously offensive
>>>>> AND profoundly objectionable
>>>>> AND without redeeming public value
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Richard,
>>>>> I like much of this suggestion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Questions
>>>>> 1. Did this language come from any other source or is it your own
>>> Richard?
>>>>> "be highly and unambiguously offensive, profoundly objectionable and
>>> without
>>>>> redeeming public value will be rejected. "
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Is the test intended to be AND or OR ?
>>>>> ie
>>>>> be highly offensive
>>>>> AND unambiguously offensive
>>>>> AND profoundly objectionable
>>>>> AND without redeeming public value
>>>>> 
>>>>> or
>>>>> be highly offensive
>>>>> AND unambiguously offensive
>>>>> OR profoundly objectionable
>>>>> AND without redeeming public value
>>>>> 
>>>>> or
>>>>> be highly offensive
>>>>> AND unambiguously offensive
>>>>> OR profoundly objectionable
>>>>> OR without redeeming public value
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. What did you not like about the EUTM tested tests of
>>>>> "directly against the basic norms of .. society".
>>>>> 
>>>>> "clear offensive impact on people of normal sensitivity".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Philip
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>