On 19/12/2011, at 8:07 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2011, at 03:10, David Cake wrote:
> 
>> 	The GNSO should absolutely not throw this issue in with RC and IOC issues IMO, and should come out fairly strongly against this idea that the Reserved Name should be expanded on a general public interest idea.
> 
> 
> Why not? Aren't they all similar/equivalent as either good or bad ideas?  
> I would think at the least that the points under discussion would be similar.
> 
> avri

	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. While the other rights being asked for are not currently reflected in legislation or treaty, and it IS within ICANNs purview to review (and reject if appropriate) requests to grant new rights. 
	I'm not saying I personally take this position. I personally think the IOC request is an ambit claim and the case in favour is insufficient. But I think that someone who takes the IOC and RC treaty justification seriously could quite consistently accept the IOC and RC positions, while rejecting the other IGOs seeking to protect their aconyms. 
Personally, I think the RC case for special treatment is considerably stronger than the IOCs, and the IOCs case far stronger than other other IGOs. I very much think the three different cases should be argued on their respective merits. 
	Cheers
		David