RE: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Robin, some "ICANN friendly" people may quote your words inappropriately
like "the US controlled lawyers put the infant  internet governmental
institutions in ICANN under fire".   For instance, it is not welcomed to
remind to many foreign gov-t officials about California law fact (though
everybody knows it).  Let's not put ICANN in hot water from other side of
the business. Compromise and even (non)working demonstration (of mapo tool)
is probably the right thing to do. Nobody needs a conflict between the GAC
and Board. Also. GAC statement is not monolithic. There is some power inside
driving it.

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:58 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?

 

The Board also has the option to throw out MAPO all together since it is
unworkable, unsupported by international law, outside scope, and will CAUSE
ICANN more PROBLEMS than it will solve.   The Board has a fiduciary
obligation to the organization under California law to not approve measures
that will get ICANN in hot water (even if GAC or some in GNSO wants it).
The Board is not obligated to follow the GAC's advice as it is only
"advisory".  At the end of the day the board is going to have to do what IT
thinks is right (not what the GAC or GNSO thinks is right).   Throwing MAPO
out and getting on with new gtlds is the right thing to do.

 

Robin

 

 

 

On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:29 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:





The MAPO call later today could be the basis for a consensus formulation
defined.

 

 We are all agreed the status quo is noxious.  There are those of us who are
unambiguously on the side of free speech; a string is a string is a string
until some fool put an interpretation to it and we remain convinced that
every fool has an unfettered right to remain foolish without burden to me.
The issue is the compromise position. 

 

So start thinking about what a smelly but barely palatable 'middle ground'
posture could be.

 

Carlton

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 10:41 AM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?

 


The GAC has made its statement. Some preliminary discussions within At-Large
have suggested that the sky has indeed not fallen and that this the GAC
statement is more of an opening statement than a final decision.

The GAC statement calls for further discussion. Some will say that this is
just a call to argue the details to implement what some (including myself)
see as a draconian least-common-denominator approach to TLD strings,
premitting only that which is not offensive to anyone. I disagree, and see
this as at least an opportunity to engage and produce something that
protects free speech (as we had been told in F2F meetings by many GAC
delegates) as well as addresses fears expressed in the statement.

The only thing that nobody wants is the status quo, which is what will
remain if we ignore the opportunity.

It appears to have been the consensus of the chairs of ALAC, GAC and GNSO
that this mailing list is the appropriate forum for such engagement, yet I
have seen nothing here since the immediate reaction to the GAC statement.

What is anyone waiting for? If the GAC is serious about wanting dialogue --
as it has indicated -- than it must be part of this conversation. Indeed,
there must *be* a conversation.

- Evan

 

 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx