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

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Wed Nov 2 09:18:10 UTC 2016

I doubt that GAC is really saying it will take off to ITU. (What GAC
thinks is high level concern may well not coincide with what ITU does
and that disparity remains a barrier). But it is showing the prisoner
the implements of torture in advance.

What this comment (by GAC chair) may well signal is concern that there
is a lack of balance between supporting organisations at ICANN. A first
amongst equals is becoming over dominant. This if true will inevitably
break ICANN capacity and legitimacy to manage governance of high level

If the ICANN board also believes it has no independent freedom to seize
initiative even to poke its supporting organisations to engage more
deeply to restore such balance that can only reinforce high level concerns.

So it is as you suggest down to ICANNs communities to prove that it can
arbitrate for high level concerns.

On that note where is the text of the GAC proposal that has set this
hare in motion?


Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> 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,
> Olivier
> 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

Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
@ FirstHand
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net

More information about the At-Large mailing list