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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck:


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I think I understand your argument but I am not convinced by your conclusion.  
You are correct that any dispute that is filed will undoubtedly be intended to 
eliminate (veto) an applied-for string but I do not think it then follows that 
we are giving every person/organization veto power.

Lets hope not.

The implication of your claim is that you need to carefully define what an 
"objection" means and under what conditions it could lead to a string 
application being denied.

For example, if the objection is basically a "notice of intent to block 
nationally," due to a contradiction with national law, I could accept it, along 
the lines Mary described. In that case, the government is conceding that there 
is no international issue and that the string could go ahead. They are simply 
notifying ICANN and the applicant that their string probably won't be 
accessible in their country.

If the government's objection is raising an issue of conflict with recognized 
international law, then it's ok, but a) it doesn't have to be a national 
government to raise it, and b) we must explicitly recognize that national 
governments have no special status in pointing out these contradictions (it 
could also be made by a human rights group, an international organization, or 
whoever).

What we want to avoid is giving governments the impression, or the reality, of 
their objection being a demand to the Board to censor a TLD string because they 
don't like it or it contradicts their national law.

Can we agree on that?

-MM