Re: [soac-mapo] Request for volunteers

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 September 2010 14:46, Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am also keen to work on a statement regarding the independent objector.
> However, we should be sure we are on the same page.  There was agreement on
> the call last week that we do not want an independent objector, so that
> should be removed from DAG4.
>
> We have to remember to keep objections to new gtlds "objective" as per
> principle 1.  If no religion, no govt, no community, no business, no
> cultural org, no person, etc. objects to a proposal for a new gtld, there is
> little grounds for expecting an "independent objector" to have any.  That
> would hardly be an "objective" standard, if none of these interests objects,
> but the ICANN Morality Tzar can be secretly lobbied into filing an
> "independent" objection.   So that is the direction I expect a statement
> from this group to flow.  Is there any disagreement with this approach?
>


Yes, there is disagreement. At-Large took a very different approach to the
IO and did not see it in quite such a negative light.

We saw the IO being able to launch objections on behalf of legitimate groups
that could not afford the financial penalty of intervening and/or were not
aware of the processes and/or might be caught offguard by an application
trying to get "under the radar". Communities that may have problems with a
proposal (and not just on MAPO-type grounds) don't spend all their time
monitoring ICANN to see whether potentailly-objectionable strings might be
proposed, but an IO would be doing that by definition. So we saw the IO from
the point of view of empowering groups that were not familiar with
navigating ICANN's inner workings yet still had a legitimate (though not
necessarily sufficient for blockage) grievance.

In At-Large, by definition we have substantial contact with groups that
generally have no interest in Internet governance, and certainly don't
understand ICANN, yet have a deep stake in its actions. In this context we
see value in an IO; without it the process is (in practice) opaque to all
but insiders.

It's also possible that the IO could be the custodian for objections that
need to be on the public record yet are not sufficiently broadly-based to
justify getting beyond the Quick Look.

- Evan