Hi
this even more problematic if you take the letter of about 20 IGOs into consideration which more or less ask the same questions not via the GAC but directly.
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pritz-04jan12-en.pdf
It is unclear whether this letter has the support of GAC or not or whether the GAC will raise this issue in San Jose. If you treat IOC and Red Cross in a special way why not other international organisations? The Paris Convention - the letter refers to it - portects also IGOs and has 176 member states. With other words, governments, represented in the GAC, has to consider what they will do with this legally binding convention with regard to new gTLDs. This could lead to a spiral where nobody knows how far this will go. The GNSO WG has concentrated only on Red Cross and IOC (ignoring widely what Konstantinos has said). I am afraid we have here the start of a rather complex process where governments/GAC have a lot of cards in their hands.
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Fr 03.02.2012 19:23
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
I totally agree with you Avri - however, there is this idea that we need to 'please' the GAC, which I totally don't get, but yet again we appear to be the minority. My understanding is that special provisions will be created for these bodies- at least in this round of the applications. I found this also problematic for various reasons: does this mean that we are creating new policies upon the existing and established ones, especially when these established ones are considered 'closed' because the applications have already started? Why is the GNSO placed in such an awkward position? And, why the GAC wants this special deal? Is it the whole of the GAC?
KK
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: ?????????, 3 ??????????? 2012 6:15 ??
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
Hi,
One thing occurs to me as to why there is such pressure to get GNSO to go along. This puts the fig-leaf of Multistakeholder decision on yet another of the decisions where the BoardStaff circumvented the process.
So, Not only do I think this is the wrong thing to do, I think it is also another slip down the slippery slope of BoardStaff decision making that circumvents the Policy process for ICANN.
The existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect IOC and IFRC at the first and even second levels - we do not need to open this barn door.
avri
On 3 Feb 2012, at 08:27, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Both IOC and IFRC have been given an exception for this round of new gTLDs by direct BoardStaff fiat, though it is against every previous policy recommendation and on the advice, for some meaning of 'advice', of just one AC. I just do not understand why they would be granted anything further than that.
>
> avri
>
> On 3 Feb 2012, at 07:30, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
>> While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for both.
>
|
