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

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 3 November 2016 at 11:06, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:


> Not sure "there is a proper process for this, and we would really like
> ​ ​
> you to participate in it rather than try to bypass it" qualifies as
> ​ ​
> a blanket blow-off or open hostility.
>

​They fully participated in the process once, and it failed them. I was
part of a WG a few years ago that was examining requests from the Olympics
and Red Cross. After months and months and thousands of person hours​, the
result was an impasse. No resolution, no appreciation of the nuance why
some IGOs might warrant protection based on public trust (ICRC) but some
might not (IOC). As a result, the lengthy process resulted in no protection
for even the Red Cross, IMO a defeat for the public interst ... and, I
imagine, no confidence among other IGOs of any better result if the same
process (essentially unchanged since then) played out again today.

IOW, once upon a time, they played the game exactly as requested ... and
got blown off. So I understand the unwillingness to repeat on the same
terms.

​- Evan​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20161103/828d50b2/attachment.html>