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