[governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Yes, and only on these grounds. Everything else should be outside
ICANN's scope, and should only be considered through due process
initiated from the outside (be the petitioners gov or non gov). This is
what we defended in the "keep the core neutral" campaign...

So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community)
to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC.

--c.a.

On 02/21/2011 01:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> On 21 Feb 2011, at 17:08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> et’s get this clear. Just as it would be unacceptable for a TLD veto “for any reason” to be administered by ICANN the private corporation,
> 
> 
> for any reason?  personally, i am willing to let ICANN veto it because they don't have their technical act together.
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t