One could also ask if the world would stop if they didn't get what they 
wanted.

On 12/22/2011 12:37 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> On Thu, December 22, 2011 1:24 am, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>> Would the world stop if the red cross got what they wanted?
> The real point is the nature of the decision process (or if you prefer:
> "due process") that leads to such an outcome, thus this is not simply
> about RC as an isolated case.  It's about what criteria we might use to
> decide that RC is a valid exception to some other rule (and other orgs
> that satisfied the same criteria might also be captured as valid
> exceptions, but orgs that did not would not).
>
> Any institutional process that is executed as an ad hoc decision takes
> power away from the rule of rules (or "the rule of law" if you prefer) and
> gives it to individuals or specific collections of people without
> meaningful accountability.
>
> The key to a healthy institutional governance process is to put in place
> clear and effective structures of accountability, based on decision
> criteria that are well-defined and publicly verifiable.
>
> So at root the question is this:
>
> What general/abstract process/criteria could justify a special case for RC
> without letting everyone and their brother have the same special
> dispensation?
>
> (For example, should I have special consideration for my trademark for
> "Music Unbound"?  I can't see any reason why I should, and I don't seek
> it.  I believe I can protect my trademark well enough without having to
> own all the "musicunbound.tld" domains or the ".musicunbound" or ".munb"
> tlds.)
>
> If RC really is deserving, let's spell out exactly and precisely why that
> might be so, and consider whether that explication really holds water in
> principle.  If we can agree on the principle, then we should have no
> problem agreeing on the empirical execution of that principle.
>
> But whatever we (ICANN) do, I think it should be based on a structural,
> principled set of criteria, not an ad hoc decision by fiat.
>
> "Ad hoc" = the rule of humans, which is the first thing we want to avoid
> in any context of public governance.
>
> Dan
>
>