[At-Large] [ALAC] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
julf at julf.com
Sat Nov 5 10:18:18 UTC 2016
> But the current process forces everything to fit into
> the GNSO's assumptions and worldview.
Of course it does - because that is why the GNSO exists in
the first place. The GNSO is not some "power block" or
lobbying organisation for the domain industry. The GNSO
exists purely as *the* mechanism for formulating gTLD
policy. And unlike the GAC or even ALAC, anyone can
participate in the GNSO process, either through the many
constituency groups (remember that the "domain industry"
is only represented in two of the four constituent groups
and seven constituencies), or even directly through the
> This forces outsider to either
> bend their message/request to fit with that worldview
It forces the outsider to fit into the ICANN PDP
process, yes. And that is what the GNSO position is
all about - it is not whether the name of a particular
organisation deserves protection or not, but whether
the GAC/"small group" recommendation is compatible with
existing PDP processes, and if not, how it can be resolved.
> The current design of the PDP is inherently biased
> against participants that are not GNSO stakeholder
What specific participants are, in your view, not catered
for in the GNSO stakeholder group model?
More information about the At-Large