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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Avri and this is exactly the way I also see it.

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Law Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org
 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:48 AM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations


hi,


But isn't  string, meaning & applicant"   a backdoor way of saying expected 
content without using those words?

a.

On 7 Sep 2010, at 08:07, Stuart Lawley wrote:

> 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
>> 
>