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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i think Richard has encapsulated the argument well but also the group needs to 
consider the "string" vs" string, meaning & applicant" argument to complete the 
picture.

for Example: what if the IKA applies for .IKA or even .KKK (see www.kkkk.net 
for details of the IKA)?






On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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
>