And this for free, as we get $0,00 from Icann! :) --c.a. On 04/27/2012 10:37 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > 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./ >> > >