[At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
julf at julf.com
Sun Nov 6 20:18:19 UTC 2016
On 06-11-16 20:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> There is no other house representing those who are neither buyers nor
> sellers yet are still affected by the DNS ... like law enforcement and
> IGOs and consumer groups and aboriginal name holders and victims of
> domain abuse.
Well, apart from the commercial and business user constituency, the
intellectual property interests constituency, and most of the non-
commercial stakeholders group.
> Whether you agree or not, the ICANN bylaws are quite clear in specifying
> the community home of non-domain-owning end-users: It's At-Large
And why wouldn't I agree with that?
> conveniently and deliberately kept outside the GNSO.
That's the part I disagree with.
> Governments are likewise kept to the side as advisors.
Can you, with a straight face, claim GAC is kept to the side?
We do have to remember that the "A" in both GAC and ALAC stands
for "Advice". That advice is always noted and processed, but
advice is not mandatory. Often the advice leads to pointing
out that the advice is contrary to existing policy and processes,
and that usually comes with a recommendation to start a consensus
policy process to accommodate the situation - and that is
exactly what we expect in the IGO situation as well.
> If you're neither domain buyer nor seller -- that is, most of the world
> -- you have no representation on GNSO. Feel free to disagree, but that
> is the functional (and bylaw-defined) reality.
I feel free to point out that I am a voting member of the GNSO Council
that incidentally happens, because of historical reasons, to own
julf.com (oh, and penet.fi too), but apart from that my only association
with domains was running the .fi ccTLD back more than 20 years ago...
> And why was it easier? Because the rest of the GNSO wouldn't take their
> requests seriously.
You don't always get what you want. It doesn't automatically
imply that the system is rigged.
> This is why the complaints of "why didn't they use our process?" are
> so laughable. Their attempts to work within the system are well
> documented, as was their treatment by the rest of the "community".
I would love pointers to that documentation.
More information about the At-Large