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

Johan Helsingius julf at julf.com
Wed Nov 2 10:38:57 UTC 2016

On 02-11-16 10:43, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Allegations of subversion of process are *absolute bullshit*. The
> process is working _exactly_ as 
> ​ICANN's
>  bylaws demand;
> - The GNSO has created policy in the interest of domain buyers and sellers.

No, the GNSO has created a policy, after a long-drawn-out
multistakeholder PGP process. The GNSO is not just an interest
group of domain buyers and sellers - half of GNSO represents
non-contracting parties - so "the rest of us".

> - Meanwhile, the GAC is doing just what the bylaws tell it to do ...
> advise ICANN. 

That, plus create a secret "small team" of Board members, GAC
representatives and people from the IGO's.

> What has got the GNSO in its current whinging fit is the "or else"
> threatened if ICANN blows off the GAC advice on IGOs ... in the way it
> has customarily blown off previous AC advice that counters the GNSO's will.

I have to disagree. The issue GNSO has is that it has repeatedly
pointed out that there is a conflict between policy as determined
by the proper policy processes and GAC advice, and the only ones
who can decide is the board - but the board keeps punting on that

> Welcome, finally, to the consequences of ICANN's deliberate separation
> of  stakeholders into different classes; those who must be heeded (the
> GNSO) and those who only give advice and may be casually blown off (the
> ACs). ICANN must now deal with this unequal, unfair structure of its own
> design. 

There is a reason ACs have "advisory" in their name. In my dictionary
"binding advice" is a contradiction of terms. If you want to affect
policy, join the appropriate policy-setting organisation. In the case
of global top-level names it is GNSO - and anyone can join one of
the GNSO constituencies (and in addition, the GNSO council also has
independent council members such as me appointed by the Nomcom from
outside the strict constituency structure).

> I welcome the discussion Olivier calls for, that recognizes and elevates
> the interests of those who neither buy nor sell domains, yet are
> profoundly impacted by ICANN policy.

And you feel that is not covered by the commercial
(non-registry/registrar) stakeholder group, or the non-commercial
stakeholder group?

> Preferably there is a negotiated middle ground -- in a meeting of
> equals, not an invitation as a guest to an already-slanted working
> group. 

The GAC was invited not as a "guest" but full-fledged member.


More information about the At-Large mailing list