one of the fun parts of multi-stakeholder is 
trying to accommodate other stakeholder's 
concerns.  Someone at the last IGF said about 
rough consensus that there's always someone left 
with the "rough".

Would the world stop if the red cross got what they wanted?

Perhaps push harder against olympic, but give if 
have to with assurance of no further creep, must 
be written in stone...

Absolutely deny the IGOs who just sent the 
letter: some are member of GAC as observers 
<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Observers>, 
they have had every opportunity to raise their 
concerns throughout the process.

Adam


>On 20/12/2011, at 2:28 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>>Hi David,
>>
>>On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM, David Cake 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>        The arguments against are all similar/equivalent.
>>        The arguments for are different, however.
>>        I think the position can be argued that 
>>treaties/legislation granting special rights to 
>>the IOC and RC have strong arguments against 
>>them, they have nevertheless been 
>>ratified/passed and it is not ICANNs position 
>>to reopen the issue but simply to acknowledge 
>>decisions already made.
>>
>>
>>
>>International treaty rights give special privileges in the DNS?
>>
>
>	No. But international treaty rights may 
>serve as a relatively forceful argument in 
>favour of changes to DNS policy (policy that 
>does, after all, reflect many other forms of 
>international treaty rights). I'm certainly not 
>suggesting that international treaties should be 
>a mechanism for changing DNS policy, merely that 
>rights granted by international treaty may (and 
>probably should) be one of the many factors 
>weighed by the GNSO (and other SO, for that 
>matter) policy creation process.
>	To turn the argument around, I don't 
>think the GNSO policy process should be 
>deliberately excluding international treaties as 
>a factor when making policy decisions. Does 
>anyone want to advance the argument that they 
>should?
>
>>
>>I thought that was done by RFC?
>>
>
>	RFCs are one path to creating DNS 
>changes, but not the only one. The GNSO makes a 
>LOT of policy decisions that have nothing to do 
>with RFCs.
>
>
>>
>>.example as well as <http://example.org/>example.org for instance.
>>
>
>	Which just goes to show that ICANN as a 
>whole can be somewhat hypocritical. We do a lot 
>of handwringing about excluding things like the 
>Red Cross (which really do have some pretty 
>solid international treaty support for their 
>position), but there is a lot of stuff on the 
>reserved names list via IETF processes on far 
>flimsier justifications. Not that 'example' is 
>particularly problematic.
>
>	Cheers
>
>		David