Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:13:26 -0400
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
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.
> 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.