Re: [soac-mapo] On the TOR
Just to be clear "we" did NOT agree to use the term "public interest objections" in this group. There were a number of people who objected to the use of this term, including myself, because it is a broadening of what the GNSO recommended for MAPO, goes beyond what is in the DAG4 even, and is a fuzzy, undefinable term that causes more arguments than it solves. So I will say it again: there is no agreement in this group to invent a new category of objections called "public interest objections". There is violent disagreement with the proposal. I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Robin On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: With all due respect, Milton, I think you (voluntarily ?) misinterpret in your mail below the scope of the proposal for a title (the use of "Public Interest Objections"). It does not transform (unlike what you seem to imply) an objection process under specific constraints into the contrary procedure that would introduce only strings that have a proven public interest value. This discussion is long past (if it ever happened). This discussion in no way "rewrites the entire gTLD process".The title is just that, a title, and we agreed yesterday that we'll revisit it later on. The key point in the discussion is what is underneath that defines the exact scope. That's what you/we should focus on to alleviate - understandable - concerns of overextending the range of objections.By the way, we are fully in the scope of the terms of reference as we agreed (after significant discussions precisely on that point) that we were dealing with : "Reviewing the terminology and the dispute resolution procedures related to recommendation 6" (per Mary's useful compromise proposal). This is about terminology and we agreed to explore replacement formulations to Morality and Public Order. Do you have a better formulation ?Moreover, one of the stated purposes of the WG (according to the TOR) is to : "develop implementation guidelines that will address the concerns expressed by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)". This is exactly what we are trying to do.So, I agree with you : let's stick to the TOR and let's get back to work. I think we have made progress. Let's not lose it.Best BertrandOn Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote: I am sorry, but “public interest objections” introduces an extremely broad and undefined standard that COMPLETELY rewrites the entire new gTLD policy. It goes far, far, beyond anything contemplated by Recommendation 6. One could say that a TLD is not in the public interest for almost any reason imaginable: economic, political, moral, etc., etc.We really cannot turn this exercise into a complete reformulation of the entire new gTLD policy. That is a breach of our ToR and a breach of ICANN process. It is a no-go. Let’s stick to the Terms of Reference. We are trying to alter the _implementation_ of Rec. 6 in a way that makes it more acceptable to the GAC. We must do so in a way that leaves unaltered all the other elements of the policy.--MMFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La ChapelleSent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:41 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Re: For review - draft recommendationsYou beat me to the point ... Was just about to make the comment : the proposal is indeed "public interest objections".Thanks Marika . BertrandOn 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!MarikaOn 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 4306http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain- Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm? partid=501038Website: www.komaitis.orgFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika KoningsSent: 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 TERMSDraft 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 LAWDraft 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 / REJECTINGDraft 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 ChapelleDélégué 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 AffairsTel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|