Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Antony


On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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 that.
> 
> a.
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Anthony,
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Evan
>> 
>> 
> 
>