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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

It must have been the late hour as my notes indeed clearly say ‘public interest 
objections’, thanks for noticing!

Marika

On 07/09/10 11:26, "Konstantinos Komaitis" <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Marika and all,

Thanks for this – it is really helpful.

In reference to point 1 (the removal of ‘morality and public order’) I totally 
agree but  what was suggested by Bertrand (and please Bertrand correct me if I 
am wrong) was the use of ‘Public Interests Objections’. In any case, I would 
like to express my disagreement with this proposal. Although I really see where 
Bertrand is coming from, as I stated in yesterday’s call I feel that we are not 
solving the terminology problem with the insertion of the term ‘public 
interest’ – it is a slippery slope, as it is more vague and abstract than the 
one currently in use (MAPO). We will still have to define what we mean by 
‘public interest’ and there is no objective criteria to do so. May I suggest 
therefore (especially since what we are trying to balance here is objections 
and free speech) to use wording like ‘objections relating to civil liberties 
and human rights’. This provides a more focused approach and a more concrete 
subject-matter. Just a suggestion.

For the issue no 2 – international  principles of law vs principles of 
international law: I am personally in favour of using the term principles of 
international law. actually, I don’t think that international principles of law 
makes sense. I can’t think of any international principles of law – even the 
concept of ‘good faith’ that is pertinent within law cannot be classed as an 
international principle of law. This is a mistaken use of the terminology and 
we really should use the correct terminology: principles of international law.

My 2 cents

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



From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:46 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] For review - draft recommendations

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