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

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Nov 2 07:54:00 UTC 2016

Dear Julf,

I hear you. This is a classic case of forum shopping.

But this ongoing incident takes us to the core of how ICANN is organised
in its SOs and ACs.
The AoC Review process addresses each SO/AC individually. It then
includes an ATRT Review, but is there a process that looks at the
overall ICANN structure and whether that kind of structure works?

Advisory Committees are able to report their findings and
recommendations to the Board. In the past, the Board has had to balance
stakeholder input and make a decision. With the Accountability process,
some parts of the community have been led to believe that policy that
reached consensus in a PDP is unalterable and the Board needs to rubber
stamp it. That would make any advisory committee obsolete.

Irrespective of the actual discussion topic, we need an ICANN-wide
discussion on the place of SOs and ACs. We also need to know whether the
balance of stakeholders has been affected by the recent CCWG
Accountability recommendations and by-law changes.

Putting the blame on such and such a type of stakeholder is, in my
opinion, not productive. The restrictions on individual GAC
representatives taking part in GNSO PDPs are well known. The underlying
politics within the GAC (back in the the member countries of the GAC)
are complex. The topic itself has been poisoning the atmosphere for a
while. The GAC Chair is raising the sword of Damocles... and whether we
like it or not, a negotiation is going to be needed... because
governments have nuclear weapons and the private sector and civil
society do not. The wild west where we are completely able to decide on
our own destiny is a dusty illusion.

Kindest regards,


On 01/11/2016 21:20, Johan Helsingius 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

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

More information about the At-Large mailing list