Hi,

I agree that the global participatory democratic experiment that is the multistakeholder model as expressed at ICANN is experiencing deep wounds and is in critical condition.

But we are not dead and gone yet.   And we should not go out quietly without a fight.

It is up to all of those who care about ICANN and the multistakeholder governance model to work together to stop the madness as soon as possible.

Perhaps a first step is combine together to request reconsideration of the recent Board and CEO actions.

avri

On 2 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Total bye-bye to multiequalstakeholderism? Gosh, I knew long, German-like words would not work in English...
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> 
> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
> More "off-road" policy making.  It would seem the board-staff has abandoned the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model for policy development processes.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: November 30, 2012 2:20:23 PM PST
>> To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee | ICANN
>> 
>>  
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm
>>  
>> Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee
>> 
>> 26 November 2012
>> 	• Main Agenda:
>> 		• Prioritization of New gTLD Applications
>> 		• IGO Name Protection
>> 			• Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012. 11.26.NG02
>> 		• RCRC IOC Protection
>> 			• Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03
>>  
>> 
>> 1.    Main Agenda:
>> 
>> 1.    Prioritization of New gTLD Applications
>> 
>> No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program engaged in a discussion on the prioritization of New gTLD applications, including the prioritization of IDNs, and the progress towards the prioritization draw scheduled to be held on 17 December 2012. The New gTLD Program Committee directed the President and CEO to draft a paper exploring the possibility of, as well as the risks and potential mitigation efforts, including a geographical region round robin process within the prioritization draw. The President and CEO noted that it will be important to assure the impeccable operation of the prioritization draw, and considerations of the risks inherent in incorporating a round robin process within the draw must be of primary consideration.
>> 
>> 2.    IGO Name Protection
>> 
>> Whereas, the GAC has provided advice to the Board in its Toronto Communiqué, stating that "in the public interest, implementation of such protection [of names and acronyms of IGOs against inappropriate registration] at the second level must be accomplished prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs, and in future rounds of gTLDs, at the second and top level."
>> 
>> Whereas, the GAC advice referenced the current criteria for registration under the .int top level domain (which are cited in the Applicant Guidebook as a basis for an IGO to file a legal rights objection) as a starting basis for protecting IGO names and acronyms in all new gTLDs, and advised that "this list of IGOs should be approved for interim protection through a moratorium against third-party registration prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs" pending further work on specific implementation measures.
>> 
>> Whereas, the GNSO is actively engaged in policy discussion regarding top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO names, and has initiated a PDP on the broader issue of whether to protect these names of certain international organizations in all gTLDS.
>> 
>> Whereas, there is currently no policy to reserve or impose a moratorium on the registration by third parties of the names and acronyms of IGOs meeting the .int criteria in place for the second level of the current round of new gTLDs.
>> 
>> Whereas, the protections for the second level, if they are provided and if they are to be effective, should be in place before the delegation of the first new gTLDs.
>> 
>> Whereas, as previously announced, the Board favors a conservative approach, in that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later time..
>> 
>> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG01), the Board requests that the GNSO continue its work on policy recommendations on top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO names on an expedited basis.
>> 
>> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG02), the Board requests that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is aware of any concern such as with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be protected shall be those names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under the current existing criteria to register a domain name in the .int gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain OR a determination of eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to ICANN to be listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013.
>> 
>> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012.11.26.NG02
>> 
>> ICANN has received requests for additional protections for the names and acronyms of IGOs, including from the UN, from the RCRC and IOC, to prevent the registration of such names and acronyms by third parties at the second level. These are similar issues and should be considered at the same time. ICANN committed to considering the recommendations made for enhancing second-level protections for rights holders in an earlier public comment forum and in recent discussions at the Toronto Meeting and international fora such as the IGF Meeting.
>> 
>> In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee can remain accountable to all parts of its community, while taking action that is reasonable based on the following precedent and rationale:
>> 
>> 1.    The Board set a precedent for this request regarding IGO names with its resolution adopted on 13 September, which requested that the GNSO consider a similar proposed solution for the first round of new gTLDs to protect the RCRC and IOC names at the second level.
>> 
>> 2.    For historical reasons, the .int top level domain includes registrations from entities that are not IGOs or those that would not qualify for registration in .int under the current eligibility criteria. As the GAC advice focused on current eligibility criteria as one of its suggested starting points for the creation of a list, it would be overbroad to extend the moratorium to all current .int registries.
>> 
>> In addition, there are entities that, while eligible for registration in .int, choose to not register in .int. Registration in the .int should not be a mandatory requirement. It is for that reason that the requirements for protection do not require registration in .int, only a demonstration that the entity would qualify under the current eligibility criteria for .int. Therefore, the resolution is only as broad as necessary, limiting a list to those names and acronyms meeting the current eligibility criteria for .int and who apply to ICANN for inclusion in the moratorium. This also allows those eligible IGOs that wish to register second level names within new gTLDs the opportunity to not participate in the moratorium.
>> 
>> 3.    As reflected in the underlying rationale for the 13 September 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm) resolution with respect to Red Cross/Red Crescent and International Olympic Committee names, the Board favors a conservative approach, and that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered. That same rationale applies for IGO names and acronyms at the second-level of the first round of new gTLDs.
>> 
>> 4.    Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the New gTLD Program Committee believes that the appropriate course is for the Board to ultimately leave these issues in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. The Committee appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an expedited PDP to develop recommendations to provide any necessary additional protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second-levels in all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the results of these policy discussions.
>> 
>> This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This action is also not expected to have a significant impact on financial or other resources of ICANN.
>> 
>> 3.    RCRC IOC Protection
>> 
>> Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee on 13 September 2012 requested that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than 31 January 2013 if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program.
>> 
>> Whereas, the new gTLD Committee acknowledges that the GNSO Council has recently approved an expedited PDP to develop policy recommendations to protect the names and acronyms of IGOs and certain INGOs – including the RCRC and IOC, in all gTLDs.
>> 
>> Whereas, although the GNSO Council's 15 November motion did not pass due to a procedural technicality, the GNSO Council will vote again on a motion at its 20 December meeting to adopt the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, pending the outcome of the recently launched PDP.
>> 
>> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG03), in light of these upcoming policy discussions to take place in the PDP involving the protection of International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations, restrictions for registration of RCRC and IOC names for new gTLDs at the second level will be in place until such time as a policy is adopted that may require further action.
>> 
>> Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03
>> 
>> Given the Committee's 13 September resolution as well as the high-level and community-wide attention on this issue, it is important for the Committee to indicate that the protections it has recommended for the RCRC and IOC names at the second level of the first round of new gTLDs will be adopted until a policy is developed. In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee can take action that is reasonable based on the following rationale:
>> 
>> 1.    Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the new gTLD Committee believes that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. The Committee appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an expedited PDP to develop recommendations to provide any necessary additional protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second-levels in all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the results of these policy discussions.
>> 
>> 2.    The Committee has been apprised that the motion to grant temporary protections to the RCRC and the IOC has been resubmitted to the GNSO Council and, having looked at the issue with voting on same resolution when it was considered on 15 November 2012, the Committee expects the Council to adopt the recommendation to provide such special protection for the RCRC and IOC names at its meeting on 20 December 2012. Recognizing the likelihood that the GNSO Council's motion will pass, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to adopt this resolution at the same time as consideration of the IGO issue, as a temporary measure, while the GNSO Council proceeds with the expedited PDP.
>> 
>> 3.    In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee can reassure the impacted stakeholders in the community, acknowledge and encourage the continuing work of the GNSO Council, and take an action consistent with its 13 September 2012 resolution.
>> 
>> This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of this work may result in positive impacts. This action is also not expected to have an impact on financial or other resources of ICANN.
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Glen de Saint Géry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>