[At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
Evan Leibovitch
evan at telly.org
Thu Nov 3 10:50:23 UTC 2016
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>
More information about the At-Large
mailing list