[ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process

[Alan Greenberg]

At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>On 24 February 2012 16:41, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments
>on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special
>exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is
>shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also
>generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and
>there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept.
>
>
>It is absolutely necessary to make clear the position that "the 
>exemption has already been granted" is a grotesque subversion of the 
>multi-stakeholder model that diminishes public respect for ICANN. 
>This example makes clear that the MSM can be easily dispensed when 
>politically difficult.
>
>I also object to the substance of the proposal, but what is truly 
>odious is this method of decision making in which bad decisions are 
>make in secret and then stakeholders are left to determine the best 
>way to "polish the turd".
>
>Personally, I disagree with our accepting a "best that we can get" 
>fallback position because it validates (and encourages more use of) 
>this top-down, opaque process. I would rather boycott this exercise 
>in futility, but explain why.
>
>Or opposition to both the substance and the process of this should 
>be clear and unambiguous, IMO.
>
>- Evan

Evan, that is a position that the ALAC may well choose to take.

On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and 
work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply 
ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but 
that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or 
At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to 
participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were 
many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I 
look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now.

On a philosophical level, I am not nearly as upset as you are. My 
reasoning goes as follows:

- This is NOT what the original GNSO recommendation on new gTLDs said to do.
- However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase 
George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts.
- To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last 
moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded 
it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed.

I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" 
position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in 
a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with 
them. That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input 
has been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and 
perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future.

Or not...

Alan