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: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:48:12 -0400
On 14 July 2010 11:30, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Avri - I too fear that they want to strengthen them; I fear that
> governments want an unofficial veto on a string that threatens to cause
> political problems. I fear that this has nothing at all to do with
> morality or public order.
You're probably right; however often political problems often turn into MAPO
issues and vice versa. This is another reason for ICANN to stay away. At any
given time, how do you know which MAPO objections are politically motivated
and which are not? How do you even try to tell the difference?
National governments can and will filter and block what they don't want --
for real or political purposes -- regardless of ICANN actions. That's not an
unofficial veto, that's a REAL veto on what enters the country's virtual
borders. Even otherwise-enlightened countries such as Australia have
discovered how to block Internet content for political gain. But ICANN need
not condone and encourage such behavior by being an unwitting agent of it.
As for whether the GAC wants to strengthen or weaken MAPO, why don't we just
*ask* rather than continue to engage in speculation? My first-hand
impressions, having met with GAC members on this issue twice in Nairobi and
once in Brussels, offer a very different picture than what Antony and Avri
are suggesting. We should be able to at least get to the heart of this
particular point and end the guessing.