[At-Large] [ALAC] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
evan at telly.org
Sat Nov 5 02:13:04 UTC 2016
On 5 November 2016 at 02:47, <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
> The problem in this discusssion is there is no meeting of the minds on
> what the problem really is.
I argree fully. But the current process forces everything to fit into the
GNSO's assumptions and worldview. This forces outsider to either bend
their message/request to fit with that worldview (in which case the
resolution is also unsatisfactory) or dispense with the process altogether
(which is at the core of the current "why won't _they_ participate in _our_
The current design of the PDP is inherently biased against participants
that are not GNSO stakeholder groups. Until this is addressed I anticipate
an increase in the number (and intensity) of disputes that can't be
addressed by ICANN processes in a manner suitable to all parties. This will
inevitably lead to more circumvention attempts, which threatens stability.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large