Does anyone have a link to an analysis/statement of (from Avri's email:) [not bar TLDs based on sensitivities unless they reach the] "threshold of defined objections." Can you suggest a good reference for information/analysis on defining the separation of 'freedom of expression' from 'sensitivities'? Gracias, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque [log in to unmask] Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 15 August 2012 11:57, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > This might be a good time to remind the board that one of GNSO's > recommendations was the principle that the process not infringe freedom of > expression rights. That was something NCUC fought for and got in the final > gnso recommendations, but has been long forgotten by staff (and the > community) in the implementation of these recommendations. > > Robin > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > The whole notion of sensitivities came it, if I remember correctly, > because no one wanted to accept the notion of National Law objections, thus > they were renamed sensitivities. > > Freedom of expression allows for all to comment on their own and the > sensitivities of others. what is critical is that the Board not bar TLDs > based on sensitivities unless they reach the threshold of defined > objections. > > But government sensitivities may be the first indicators of requests for > GAC warnings and advice. So they are important indicators and calls to > action. > > avri > > On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:47, Mark Leiser wrote: > > To me, this only reaffirms Professor Mueller's statement about objecting > to sensitivities. If every country objected (and won the argument) based on > a sensitivity issue... > > > > Kind regards, > > > Mark Leiser > > > 145 Kilmarnock Road > Suite 612 > Glasgow G41 3JA > Tel: +44 (0)845 299-7248 > Email: [log in to unmask] > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/markleiser > Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser > Fax: +44 0141-404-2633 > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Marc Perkel <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > What if Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines wanted .virgin? That would > actually make sense. > > http://www.virgin.com/company > > > On 8/14/2012 9:38 PM, Horacio T. Cadiz wrote: > We've been discussing new gTLDs and HR. Milton objected to the > statement: "Consideration of applications for new TLDs should be > mindful of sensitivities." > > KSA objects to .virgin, .baby, and others > > > http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/0/14/icann.receives.registration.complaints.on.moral.health.grounds/ > > > > The sensitivities of the KSA have been aroused. > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > > > >