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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Frivolous is a hard word, and I would hesitate to ever call a gov't frivolous. 

But yes, I would think it should be dismissed on the basis of 'insufficient 
grounds'

a.

On 8 Sep 2010, at 15:52, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> So if the purpose of the quick check procedure is eliminate frivolous
> complaints, a dispute filed on the basis of national law would be
> considered frivolous and not allowed to proceed?
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:39 AM
>> To: soac-mapo
>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
>> government objections)
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As I said, it is  not the intent of the objector that matters to me,
>> but the criteria under which the quick check will operate.
>> 
>> I think we should not allow for national law to be a valid reason
> under
>> the quick check rules.
>> 
>> I.e. only reasons bearing on international law should count at that
>> point.
>> 
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 8 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems to me that all objections would have the intent of trying
> to
>>> block the application, at least under the currently proposed
>> procedures.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:27 AM
>>>> To: soac-mapo
>>>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Third "draft recommendation" (individual
>>>> government objections)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>