[At-Large] [ALAC] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
evan at telly.org
Sat Nov 5 00:17:16 UTC 2016
On 4 November 2016 at 18:31, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
> is an official process for it in ICANN - the GNSO PDP.
That is a signfiicant part of the problem. It is a process designed by the
GNSO for the exclusive benefit if its own stakeholder groups, without
consideration that other participants may need different modalities for
decision-making. As such, this has a designed-in process in which there are
two classes of participants -- the GNSO, and the invited guests who sit at
the back of the room. The results of such PDPs must be ratified only by the
GNSO, and at that stage the other parties have no voice. As I said, I have
already participated in GNSO processes where the At-Large requests (which
were deemed reasonable in the WG) were dispensed with at the time of
ratification and there was nothing we could do about it.
You may be very proud of the process, but it is utterly hostile to those
outside the GNSO bubble. As such, don't be surprised if outsiders --
especially those who have already tried to work with it and found their
viewpoints at best rejected and at worst belittled -- seek other paths.
There has been significant and beneficial progress in the evolution of
CCWGs. But until that becomes the default decision-making process, those
outside the GNSO will always find the PDP structure unwelcome and of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large