Vittorio Bertola wrote:
1) How comes that a statement from a constituency which is supposed to represent the views of the entire world is only representing one point of view, but not the other?
Because the global consensus was overwhelmingly with one side. (Why are you incapable of grasping that every region of the world might agree that the morality/order sections of the resolution are a bad idea?) In fact, it is notable that, despite the considerable diversity within At-Large, it was capable of gaining consensus on this position. Perhaps that should indicate to you that condemnation for these clauses is widespread; this is absolutely not a view from just one region.
2) How comes that the ALAC only stated the negative aspects of this decision, but did not bother to mention the positive sides and the satisfaction of many At Large participants?
Perhaps you did not take the time to listen to Wendy's actual comments; the very first thing she said was "the at-large, as registrants and as users of domain names, supports the introduction of new gTLDs". But her comments indicated that the good parts -- which we all want -- are seriously poisoned by the bad. Any long-term view of the situation must acknowledge that the short-term benefit of new gTLDs will be seriously impeded by the morality and order sections.
3) How were the community and the ALSes consulted on that statement?
NCUC expressed this position emphatically yet was ignored in the GNSO conclusion. Of course, as is overwhelmingly the case, ALAC was put in a responsive position and did not have enough time to do a complete canvass of ALSs. So it was the ALAC -- a mainly-elected global group intended to express the views of the grassroots -- which did what it could, together with the elected RALO chairs and secretariats who were able to confirm the community agreements with the ALAC position.
Could someone please provide me with answers?
There you go. - Evan