Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:56:10 -0400
On 14 July 2010 00:13, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> My only fear is that the GAC objections are not for the abolition of MAPO
> but for the strengthening.
>From Bertrand de La Chapelle at the ALAC/GAC meeting in Brussels (direct
* What about a mechanism that says -- or what about exploring a mechanism
> that says there is actually very, very few or even no limitation on the
> question of morality and public order regarding entry in the root itself --
> I'm explore hearing -- entry in the root itself. The only criteria are about
> stability, about who has the right to run the TLD, and that's all. *
Not everyone shares Bernard's point of view, but it was far more common than
I anticipated. There was a also concentrated ALAC/GAC meeting in Nairobi
where I heard first hand how (at least some) GAC people were no more
supportive of the DAG implementation of MAPO than At-Large was.
So, based on what I've heard myself, I will be optimistic until proven
otherwise. There is a significant displeasure in the GAC with
objection-based MAPO; at issue is whether to replace it with something
weaker, or to just get rid of it and leave judgements of morality to
national governments (that would be able to override ICANN anyway).
Of course we won't know until we ask directly. Right now I'm the only person
on this list from At-Large and I'm not sure anyone is here from the GAC. The
true engagement won't happen until the audience here expands.
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.
At-Large is very much of the opinion that the existing MAPO provisions are
draconian, with very real chilling-effect consequences.