Re: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

All

I think we're making progress.   Removing the explicit phrase 'morality and 
public order' is helpful, and I think by sharpening the description of 
principles of international law we're making the process clearer and more 
effective.  Also, having a high voting threshold for rejection makes sense to 
me as I think the failsafe (when in doubt)  position should favour approval.

Where I don't think we're making progress, at least in writing, is addressing 
the GAC concern over 'controversial' strings.   As discussed earlier today, 
these are strings that may not reach the level of international principles  - 
but which are nevertheless significantly offensive to some.   Community 
objection might be used against some of these strings but not all of them  (as 
community objection requires the string to contain a group 'identifier').    

The challenge then is controversial strings that are not addressed by 
international principles.   I understand there is a natural tension between the 
desire (by some) to limit these strings and the recommendations in 
Implementation Guideline G ('freedom of expression').   I'm wondering if there 
might be some middle-ground words that can partially satisfy both sides of the 
debate.  Could terms like 'demeaning', 'inflammatory', 'intentionally and 
provocatively offensive' or 'without redeeming public value'  provide some 
tools to reasonably challenge strings?      

I like the progress we're making but I don't think we've yet addressed one of 
the key GAC concerns.  If we can address that concern, without harsh limits on 
freedom of expression, I'd like to do so.  

RT


On Sep 6, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below the draft recommendations that came out of today’s CWG Rec 
> 6 WG meeting. For those on the call, please let me know if I’ve missed or 
> misstated anything. For those of you that were not on the call, if you do not 
> agree with one or more of these draft recommendations, please share your 
> objection and reason for objection with the mailing list. 
> 
> USE OF MORALITY & PUBLIC ORDER TERMS 
> 
> Draft Recommendation: Remove the references to Morality & Public Order in the 
> Draft Applicant Guidebook as far as these are being used as an international 
> standard and replace them with the term ‘Public Order Objections’. Further 
> details about what is meant with ‘Public Order Objection’ would need to be 
> worked out to ensure that it does not create any confusion or contravene 
> other existing principles such as principle G.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW 
> 
> Draft Recommendation: Give serious consideration to other treaties to be 
> added as examples (see list circulated by Marilyn Cade) in the Draft 
> Applicant Guidebook, noting that these should serve as examples and not be 
> interpreted as an exhaustive list.
> 
> Draft Recommendation: Clarify that in the current Draft Applicant Guidebook, 
> Individual governments are able to file an objection based on a national 
> concern. At the end of the day, national governments will block what they 
> don't like, but they have to be heard and make their case and the potential 
> impact it might have.
> 
> Draft Recommendation: Clarify terminology by using Principles of 
> International Law instead of International Principles of law to make it 
> consistent with what GNSO intended (possible implications to be further 
> discussed in meeting tomorrow with Jones Day lawyer)
> 
> HIGH BOARD TRESHOLD FOR APPROVING / REJECTING
> 
> Draft Recommendation [For further discussion on tomorrow’s meeting]: To 
> reject a string for which a recommendation 6 objection has been filed, there 
> should be a higher threshold of the board to approve a string / there should 
> be a higher threshold to reject a string / a sub-set might require a higher 
> threshold to approve.
> 
> If you cannot participate in tomorrow’s meeting in which Carroll Dorgan from 
> Jones Day will participate, please share any questions you would like to ask 
> him with the mailing list so these can be put forward if time allows.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika