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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

You beat me to the point  ... Was just about to make the comment : the
proposal is indeed "public interest objections".

Thanks Marika .

Bertrand


On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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<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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gac mailing list
> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")