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

[Milton L Mueller]

There is already a community objection procedure. It has very specific methods and criteria. Even assuming this procedure is inadequate or needs modification (which I don't - I actually think it is too strong) you don't ask for absolute, arbitrary power to veto "for any reason" if you are seriously concerned with that minor issue.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 1:17 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition


Hmmmm, I have signed the Petition but had not throught about the 1% Carlos is talking about.




On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there
might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived
conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a
cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will
be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and
take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely
underpowered community of local gov or...

I do not want to close the door on these possibilities.

frt rgds

--c,a,

On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection'
>
>
> And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it.  And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand.
>
> As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else.
>
> Seems fair, but ...
>
> Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture.  Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism.  By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes.
>
> Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective.  That is why I signed the petition.
>
> I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider.  E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval.
>
> This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant.
>
> a.
>
>
> PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110221/bbd3ca08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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