Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:28:42 +0300 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi David,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM, David Cake <[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?
I thought that was done by RFC?
.example as well as example.org for instance.
> 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.
>
Everybody thinks they are special, and everybody wants a pony.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
|
|
|