I am no doubt missing a lot of things from these debates, but...

Source doc from the 14th sept addressed sld strings. Source doc from 
20th june addressed TLD strings. Both were lumped together in this 
discussion (I thought) although this discussion admittedly proceeded 
largely on principled grounds. I suppose it could have gained in 
relevance had we dwelled on the details of the justifications of the 
implementation of both, /before/ going on principled grounds, if it must 
have gone there at all. But, to my/our defense, it's not like the 
justifications for those positions (reserving strings) are cleanly 
presented for debate. Even deep in the links. Justifications are usually 
summed up by academic critics, from whose summary of talking points and 
implicit politics can we then try to assess those justifications and 
opine and/or carve out ideas for policy-making ....

So ... Was under the impression that both were being discussed and chose 
to address only TLDs.

The logic is still the same though (even though my first sentence about 
compromise and politics still applies). I understand that the reserve 
list is already existing, so some bad policy choice was made before 
(which makes me reflect on the 'value' of compromise here). I guess no 
one will be surprised if I hold an ideologically-consequent position on 
this very-related although different policy matter:

If they apply for red-cross.africa, good for them. If they don't, they 
have no use for it. If they do and merely park it (the reserve list is 
meant to prevent that 'obligation'), they should be stripped of it, just 
like any other cybersquatter, as per Tim's very reasonable use test 
doctrine proposal, or existing misuse laws, norms, and/or regs as others 
have suggested. They should not be allowed to colonize yet to exist SLD 
string.

To address and counter a few potential justification for a reserve-policy :

Yes, phishing may happen. Yes, parody and critique may befall this or 
other great organization. Just like it could from any book bearing the 
title "Red Cross", or just like it could in any other piece of media, 
including any addressing compendium or system.

In any case, the intention of preventing parody and critique, while it 
may well be an underground justification for these kinds of positions, 
is simply not defensible. As for preventing phishing through a reserve 
list, this is not only overkill, it is overkill that sets precedent for 
bad law and subsequent bad compromise.

As for my point about compromise, I am not that wise and lazy yet: I 
make it merely not to yell too much about turning the clocks on settled 
bad policy, and because I know that extreme demands may be 
counterproductive. I defer to you good people doing a wonderful job, and 
i try to do so with reserve. But, as to my principled belief I hold that 
the strange doctrine that trademarked or famous strings must be 
protected in an addressing scheme was never supported by law or facts 
relating to the public interest. It was a compromise that I wish would 
not have been made but that might have been understandable in the 
context of then-TLD usage and related cybersquatting rush of the first 
come first serve era. I am a businessman and i can see the point of 
having a rapid and cheap mechanism for resolving numerous potential 
conflicts. What we needed then and what we need now is a 
(mis)use-doctrine, including, importantly, the obligation to use. Sadly 
the hard cases were solved with wrong analogies and bad law was crafted 
and a misplaced sense of entitlement or property on addressing strings 
prevailed.

Now, as Nuno and others have noted, people use domain names much more 
loosely now a days, and so those early veiling and hard-case 
circumstances are mostly gone and I see no reason to extend this bad 
policy.

I am therefore tempted to conclude this late night ramble by a quote 
from "Life line 
<http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743471598/0743471598___2.htm>" 
that goes a little like this:

"The temporary injunction is lifted, and Dr. Pinero must not be molested 
in the pursuit of his business. Decision on the petition for permanent 
injunction is reserved without prejudice pending the accumulation of 
evidence. Before we leave this matter I wish to comment on the theory 
implied by you, Mr. Weems, when you claimed damage to your client. There 
has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion 
that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public 
for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with 
the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of 
changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange 
doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals 
nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the 
clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Nicolas

On 10/5/2011 11:20 PM, McTim wrote:
> Nicholas,
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Nicolas Adam<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> I can appreciate the importance of politics and compromise here. But ...
>>
>> Why don't Red Cross apply for it's god-forsaken string?
> If you read the source doc, it's about 2nd level domain names which
> they want to protect. so NOT dotredcross, but redcross.africa,
> redcross.eco, redcross, nyc, etc, etc.
>
>