Dear Milton,

Not sure who were addressing.  You quote McTim, but I think that I was the one who wrote the line you commented on.

On 8 Feb 2012, at 14:10, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Tell me: what procedures, standards, accountability arrangements, etc. ensure that the IO only acts on behalf of "small communities, especially indigenous and poor communities who find an application does harm to their community?" 
> 
> It is amateurish politics

By amateur do you mean those who love politics as opposed to the professionals who get paid to do it?
Or are you just starting out with a little bit of a rhetorical flourish to pull the respondent off guard?

> to think that you can give powers to an entity based on nothing more than the hope that that power will only be used in ways that you think it ought to be used. And please, think for just a few moments about how many other people there are out there, with different values, who hope it will be used in ways that _they_ hope for.

I believe this would be adhered to for several reasons:

1. that is the basis on which these community interest objections can be filed as documented in the guidebook and in the policy that guides the guidebook.
2. if the IO attacks on a different basis, it can be thrown out as a frivolous objection just as any other group's can, as documented in the guidebook
3 this is not happening in a dark room, but in an environment where the entire community, including you, can read the objections, watch the process and create incredible political (both amateur and professional) hardship for the IO who goes astray.  In fact in a case where an Objection is done inappropriately and not thrown out a frivolous, a group such as the NCSG can offer to add content and support the the applicant response.

But you do bring up a good point.  We have not seen the written guidance for the IO yet, nor the written guidance for the those handling the objection processes.  We should make sure that this information is vetted by the community and that it does contain the safeguards that you require.  We are not about to make the IO go away in this round (I personally support the idea and always have), but we may still have a lot to say about how this function is run - as long as we demand that say forcefully and persistently enough.

thanks

avri


> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> McTim
>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:41 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for
>> Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I tend to disagree with part of this sentiment.
>>> 
>>> I agree that using the IO for the purposes of the IOC or the IFRC
>> would be a 'yuk'.  Both have amble resources beyond what they use for
>> their core missions to take care of this themselves.
>> 
>> 
>> While I agree that both orgs could fight their own corner on this, both
>> orgs arguably have significant communities of interest that they work
>> with (RC volunteers/Olympic athletes) who would perhaps fit the
>> definitions of "community" in the Community Objections criteria listed
>> in the AG.  The IO could then object on their behalf if for some reason
>> they did not want to prosecute an objection themselves.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I do, however, see positive value in an IO that is willing to take up
>> the issues of small communities, especially indigenous and poor
>> communities, who find an application does harm to their community,
>> complain about it during the comments, but who cannot afford either the
>> rigor or the cost of a full objection.  The key to not including lists
>> of the protected is the availability of an objection process that serves
>> all.  An objection process that is only available to wealthy
>> organizations does not satisfy the needs of all those who may be injured
>> by a particular application.
>> 
>> Full ACK
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>