Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My only fear is that the GAC objections are not for the abolition of MAPO but 
for the strengthening.

In the best of all possible worlds, I might also object - but no one has ever 
called ICANN that.  But for the meantime I still think we need to find a middle 
position between no MAPO and a draconian MAPO.  I still think DAGv4 provides 
that.

a.

On 13 Jul 2010, at 23:55, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> 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 clear:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Evan
> 
>