RE: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification

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

Thanks Konstantinos.  So are you saying then that you think you think
the standards for incitements under criminal law should apply in the new
gTLD process?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:36 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
> 
> No Chuck, you didn't misunderstand. The term 'incitement' is used both
> in criminal and civil law. however, the standard of proof is
different.
> In criminal legal practice, law has the tendency to require higher
> standards, because of the sanctions that criminal procedures carry;
> this is not the case for civil matters where sanctions are not as
> strict.
> 
> I sort of fail to see however the direct relevance of civil law in our
> case and I my reading of incitement in DAG4 is associated with
criminal
> law. So far we have been talking about incitement in relation to
> terrorism, violence and/or child pornography amongst others. These are
> criminal issues.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. This, at least, has been my
> understanding so far.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 08/09/2010 13:07, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I thought that Carroll stated that this was not a case of criminal law
> but rather civil law and that the use of "incitement" was well enough
> defined under civil law?  Did I misunderstand?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> > Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:51 AM
> > To: Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this Philip - I will be looking out for such a
> registration
> > :)
> >
> > Again though I am not convinced about this. According to criminal
> law,
> > incitement requires, amongst others: action, intent and
encouragement
> -
> > I don't see how we can ensure through a single string - even the one
> > that appears to be against me - that all these requirements are met.
> > Even Carroll yesterday suggested that for incitement determinations,
> > context is something that we cannot possibly overrule. Criminal
law's
> > incitement was surely not drafted with gTLDs in mind, but at the
same
> > time let's not stretch the law in an effort to fit novel issues,
such
> > as gTLD strings. We did that in the trademark arena and look where
it
> > led us.
> >
> > KK
> >
> > On 08/09/2010 09:14, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> > "For me, no string is sufficient enough to incite people to do
> > anything"
> >
> > How about killkonstantinoskomaitis ?
> > leading to registrations such as hang.killkonstantinoskomaitis
> >
> > Not that I propose spending my USD 185k on this : )
> > P
> >
> >
> >
>