[At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war?

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

Fair point and while I also do not like the using the "backdoor" idea. I
think one of the issue is how much of non-GNSO Council member view can
decisive in final outcome production(this would apply to all ACs).

Like I said, I don't have details of this particular instance but I can
imagine how ironically welcoming some members within GNSO can be towards
GAC's views; From the article shared, it seem GAC was part of the process
initially but withdrew, will be good to know why that happened.

I think as AtLarge, we should be careful not to support what clearly seem
not be in the interest of internet end user because GAC didn't go through
PDP but used the means it had; Let's not cut the head to cure the headache

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 1 Nov 2016 16:50, "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> Evan,
>
> > At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first
> > time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
>
> Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about
> the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to
> determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations
> refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being
> invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board,
> as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they
> wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a
> leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes?
>
>         Julf
>
> [Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have
> no business connection with the "domain industry"]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20161101/ec8dc7c0/attachment.html>