Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:55:27 -0400
On 13 July 2010 17:08, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> No-one has a strenuous objection to what's in DAG4 except the GAC.
The At-Large statement on new gTLDs, endorsed unanimously at the Summit
during the Mexico City Meeting (and still maintained as its official
stance), was quite
We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of objections
> based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business
> being in (or delegating) the role of comparing relative morality and
> conflicting human rights.
In my first message in this thread I stated that "[At-Large] generally took
the position that the MAPO process as-is should be scrapped". How does that
*not* constitute "strenuous objection"?
I offered a personal comment here that some (small) allowance for MAPO could
be mentioned in the Independent Objector role (it already exists in theory
but the DAG could make it explicit). But be very clear that At-Large is
wholeheartedly and emphatically against an explicit MAPO mechanism the DAG.
>From what I have been reading on this list it appears that NCSG -- or at
least some of its prominent members -- also oppose MAPO in the DAG.
So I'd say that it's quite inaccurate to say that "no-one has a strenuous
objection". Indeed, I have personally witnessed some *very* strenuous
objection -- in Mexico, in Nairobi, in Brussels, and here on this list.
Maybe nobody noticed it (or cared) until the GAC signed on, but stakeholder
opposition to MAPO has been around for a long time.