[At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war?
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 09:50:02 UTC 2016
Olivier echos exactly my point! (re: GAC only seem to have used the "more
reliable" means available to them).
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> 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
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large