Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 July 2010 15:23, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:


> What specifically makes it unworkable?
>



[ Note: on this list, unless stated otherwise I am speaking in a personal
capacity, though I am chair of the At-Large gTLD working group that studied
the MAPO issue from an Internet end-user POV. ]


The At-Large discussions on the issue had a somewhat different -- and more
simplified -- approach, but seemed to come to similar conclusions as Milton
suggests.

We took the position that MAPO as proposed:

1) Would effectively turn ICANN into an international treaty body when it is
not (and should not in our opinion be) regarded as having either authority
or expertise in that role. (We have also been seeing this kind of
"quasi-treaty feature creep" happening in trademark issues).

2) Puts ICANN in the position of judging comparative morality. In MAPO's
first DAG mention, ICANN was to ajudicate morality claims itself; in later
DAGs it was to sub-contract the role, but in effect ICANN would still
maintain responsibility for judging one party's morality (ie, the
proponent(s) of a TLD) against another (objections to that TLD). ICANN would
be repeatedly asked to judge whether the rights of a community to express
itself are "superior" to those who find the very nature or name of the
community abhorrent. No matter which side "wins", the loser will be
rightfully insulted, and there's no internationally-recognised appeal
process provided.

According to my recollection, At-Large took the view that ICANN has neither
the competence nor the authority to make (or delegate) ethical judgements
that directly affect its stakeholders. (It has a hard enough time making and
enforcing technical ones!) The objection-based MAPO process is seen as
designed to create a new bureaucracy within ICANN to perform a function it
has no right to be doing. In the hands of ICANN staff, MAPO appeared to take
the form of an expansionist make-work project that would entail substantial
expense, larger ICANN payroll and significant legal exposure, without really
resolving anything (because countries would never relinquish the sovereign
right to block whatever they want regardless of ICANN action).

We generally took the position that the MAPO process as-is should be
scrapped, and that minor mods to the DAG sections on community-based
applications and the role of the independent objector could be used to deal
with the most outrageous (and universally-repugnant) examples of
objectionable strings. This, paraphrased, constituted part of the formal
At-Large Summit statement on the DAG, a statement that was perceived to be
completely ignored by staff (that didn't even acknowledge its receipt, let
alone provide rationale for rejection).

As the DAG has not changed substantively on MAPO since Mexico, neither has
the At-Large position.

- Evan