I don't know what the procedure is for securing overall NCSG approval, but I also endorse Avri's statement. Maria On 27 September 2012 13:51, Ginger Paque <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > [log in to unmask] > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > On 27 September 2012 07:47, Andrei Barburas <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > +1 from me. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Andrei Barburas > > > > Community Relations Services Officer > > > > > > > > International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) > > > > P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands > > > > NPOC, ICANN member > > > > > > Mobile: +31 62 928 2879 > > > > Phone: +31 70 311 7311 > > Fax: +31 70 311 7322 > > Website: www.iicd.org > > > > > > > > People ICT Development > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > >> The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a > temporary > >> registration block for the IOC and IFRC. This is the statement I > propose be > >> added to the statement indicating the disagreement of the NCSG with that > >> proposal. > >> > >> I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement. > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in > >> IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons: > >> > >> 1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be > made > >> by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the > process > >> rules as established in the ICANN by-laws. > >> > >> 2. This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by > attempting > >> to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact > >> gathering and presenting information to the council that can be used in > >> deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP. > >> > >> The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible > >> outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level. > We > >> support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal > among > >> competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved > name > >> policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP > runs > >> its course. > >> > >> The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that > >> also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting > >> such special reservations must include a full discussion of all who > request > >> such reservations. > >> > >> Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be > used > >> solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding > names > >> to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account. > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> Avri Doria > > > > >