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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I guess my issue is the basis of the objection, and what is considered valid in 
the quick look.

If national law is a valid criteria for objection, then it passes quick look. 
So while a national gov't may have standing to object, does their national law 
count as a relevant reason to carry that objection beyond quick look?

If they are paying a fee to object, and objecting as a fair waring that they 
plan to block the string or warning their nationals of dire consequences, that 
is ok as it is an internal issue.  But it should be considered invalid in the 
quick look for reason 4-below. 

But any of the reasons requires some ICANN action, even if only quick look 
rejection.


a.



On 8 Sep 2010, at 08:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> An objection by a sovereign government can be one of many things, and
> these functions are not mutually exclusive:
> 
> 1) A public declaration that an application is undesirable and the use
> of the proposed string is counter to the domestic public interest;
> 
> 2) A request to the applicant to reconsider/amend/withdraw (possibly
> escalating from "request" to "demand" if the applicant is a resident
> of -- or does business in -- that country)
> 
> 3) A public warning that the country may block the string if approved
> 
> 4) A request to ICANN to block the application from succeeding
> 
> 
> Of these, only #4 requires intervention by ICANN in the application
> process. Indeed, if the objection is based on politics (ie, to appease
> an angry population), the real intent of the objection may be nothing
> more than to fulfil #1.
> 
> The mere provision of an objection process that allows national (or
> even regional) complaints to be fully aired and "on the record" --
> with the tacit acknowledgement that the complaint is insufficiently
> grounded to cause ICANN to block it globally -- may serve a valuable
> purpose. This is even so for objections that have no chance (and maybe
> no intention) of resulting in a blockage of the application.
> 
> - Evan