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 > >