RE: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government objections)

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver,

 

My apologies for not responding sooner but I am just now catching up after my 
attempt to take some time off and associated travel today.

 

Did the meeting we had today with Carroll help any with the concerns you 
express below?

 

Chuck

 

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle; Marika Konings; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government 
objections)

 

Chuck,

during the call yesterday, I disagreed, and I perhaps did not explain my 
position correctly.
What I was basically saying is that if a sovereign government does not like a 
gTLD because it considers it as potentially being the cause of a conflict in 
the country, it is 100% sure that the government in question will perform an 
outright block of the gTLD in question in its territory.

I therefore assert that we are wasting our time in trying to define language to 
use to describe a system of objection and its processes at application level.
If a government feels that strong about a gTLD ("potential cause of conflict in 
the country"), the gTLD will be blocked point blank.
Why are we then risking engaging in what I consider ICANN agreeing or 
disagreeing with this objection?

If the Board ends up allowing the gTLD to be created (and hence rejecting the 
objection from the country), it risks creating an open conflict with the 
country itself.
If the Board ends up rejecting the gTLD application (and hence allows the 
objection from the country), it risks becoming an external accomplice to the 
decision of the country. ICANN would effectively provide its seal of approval 
to the objection.

I cannot warn you enough about the potential freedom of speech problem this 
raises. Why would we open the door to a national problem being extended 
worldwide?

I like Evan's proposal of a database of objections being created.
I do not like the Board (and/or an external evaluator) rejecting a string on 
any other reason than Principles of International Law. 
This is ICANN asking for trouble.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Le 07/09/2010 14:40, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : 

It seems to me that Bertrand's suggestions are helpful.  Does anyone disagree?  
I do have one question though: what is meant by 'introduction process'?  Is 
that the 'Initial Evaluation Process' or something different?  We should use a 
term that is used in AGv4.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:23 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual government 
objections)

 

Marika,

 

The third "draft recommendation" listed below says : 

 

        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.

 

I am not sure the DAG 4 allows this already. Or have I missed something ?

 

The current DAG envisages only the four specific types of objection : string 
confusion, legal rights, MaPO and community. The MaPO objection process is the 
one we are talking about here (even if renamed). But in the current MaPO 
wording, there is no possibility, as far as I understand, for a particular 
government to voice an objection that is not linked to a general 
objectionability (according to principles of international law), but related to 
its own public interest concerns (ie :"sensitivities" to take the GAC wording).

 

If the group considers, as Konstatinos rightly put it, that : governments "have 
to be heard and make their case and the potential impact it might have", we may 
need to clarify the conditions for such an objection by one or a few 
governments.  

 

So I suppose that what we actually mean is the following :

 

        Draft recommendation : The Applicant Guidebook should allow individual 
governments to file an objection based on specific national public interest 
concerns.

 

On a side note, the wording of the second sentence could be improved by saying 
something like : 

 

        Individual governments may, in the last resort, block by law TLDs 
raising public interest concerns at the national level, but they have to be 
heard in the introduction process and be provided the opportunity to make their 
case and describe the potential impact the TLD might have.

 

In other words, the idea is to provide the avenue for a fair hearing of 
governments concerns in the introductory process, recognizing that if the 
string is approved nonetheless, they will retain in any case the possibility to 
block.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 

 

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> 
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 


_______________________________________________
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")





-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html