ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report

  • To: Controversial TLDs <gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:52:01 -0400


I think i disagree on two points.

I do believe that as a multi-stakeholder organization, it is the job of ICANN to make sure that all stakeholders and others are indeed represented. And while it is easy to argue that this is not currently the case, i think it is also easy to argue that it should be the case and that ICANN should always be striving to make this the case. True, it is not the job of this WG->subgroup to make it happen but I think that was at least part of the point behind the LSE review and part of the work being done by the board (or at least i assume that is what the Board is doing) on council reform.

As far as the council or other representative/constituency based policy SOs being responsible for filtering controversy disputes, i think that calling a name controversial is indeed a policy issue and hence is part of what the council, and other SOs are indeed paid the big bucks for. And the ACs are paid the big bucks for representing outside and other interests. Making the ultimate recommendation is indeed still the province of the RSTEP-like process and ultimately the board if their decision is appealed.

At this point, I think you and I are supporting two contrary viewpoints and it would be good to see what some of the others on the list think.


On 2 maj 2007, at 11.37, Marilyn Cade wrote:

Getting to what gives a group or an individual 'standing' is indeed a
challenge. That will be in the category of 'more work needed'. However, not
everyone is a member of a SO constituency, and I am not clear that creating
constituencies is the solution.

Perhaps we need to think more about what makes up a 'controversy' and then
address how other entities would get 'standing'. But I also don't want to
put the GNSO Council into the middle of making the determination. That
doesn't sound like what councilors are elected to do. :-)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy