Thanks, Robin, for pointing this out. So NCSG did a good job for the whole of ICANN. Norbert On 4/27/2012 4:50 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Dear All, > > Wow! When the ICANN Board adopted its resolution rejecting Red Cross > & Olympic Committee special privileges in the DNS, they provided a > Rationale > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm> which > was identical to what NCSG had argued during the GNSO Council Meeting > when we deferred the Council's rush to adopt the privileges. > > It is also worth noting that the ICANN Board posting these > "Rationales" to explain their votes is a terrific and relatively new > feature that ICANN has adopted as a result of the ATRT Recommendations. > > Best, > Robin > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm > > […] > > > GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and > International Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs > > The Committee discussed potential ways that it could address the > GNSO Recommendation and the need to acknowledge the inputs provided by > the GNSO though the Committee is not prepared to make changes to the > Applicant Guidebook at this time. > > The Committee then took the following action: > > Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee > acknowledges receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending > certain protections to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the > International Olympic Committee names at the top level. > > Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses > to not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time. > > *All voting members of the Committee voted in favor of the > Resolutions. The Resolutions carried.* > > > Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5 > > /The Committee thanks the GNSO for its work to date on this issue. > While the recommendations of the GNSO are well taken, changing the > Applicant Guidebook at this time must be balanced against ICANN's > commitment to accountability and transparency. The public comment > "reply" period remains open on this topic through 14 April 2012, > therefore any Committee action at this time – other than > maintaining the status quo – could not reflect all of the inputs > received on this issue. The comments received to date also > demonstrate the existence of opposition to the adoption of the > recommendations./ > > /Implementation details have not been worked out to address these > recommendations.In addition, a change of this nature to the > Applicant Guidebook nearly three months into the application > window – and after the date allowed for registration in the system > – could change the basis of the application decisions made by > entities interested in the New gTLD Program./ > > /Comments received in the public comment forum also raise > procedural issues with these recommendations that indicate > concerns with the multi-stakeholder process utilized in this > instance. While the Committee is not making a determination at > this time about these procedural concerns, their existence also > weighs towards maintaining the status quo at this time./ > > /The status quo is that the Applicant Guidebook already provides > several other protections available to the IOC and Red Cross for > the top level, including a moratorium on the delegation of certain > names at the top level in the first round of applications; an > objection process which allows parties with standing to submit an > objection on the grounds that an application infringes its > existing legal rights; and theGAC Early Warning and Advice > Processes. As protections already exist, when balanced with the > accountability and operational issues posed by changing the > Applicant Guidebook at this time, the public interest will be > better served by maintaining the status quo. This action is not > expected to have an impact on resources, nor is it expected to > have an impact on the security or the stability of theDNS./ > > /Nothing in the Committee's action or this rationale is intended > to preclude the consideration of the GNSO recommendations for > future rounds of applications within the New gTLD Program./ >