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.CarltonFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan LeibovitchSent: 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
|