<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I don't agree with granting any additional rights to either of these organizations. They haven't even tried to show why the existing rules are insufficient to protect their interests and it would be a terrible precedent to set to encourage this kind of "special privilege" beggaring. ICANN shouldn't encourage special interests to lobby for special privileges like we see here. Existing and multi-stakeholder processes are in place for protecting rights and making policies. This is just an end-run around the multi-stakeholder process (as others have already said) and undermine ICANN's credibility as a multi-stakeholder forum to privilege special interests like this. BoardStaff already threw-out the bottom-up GNSO recommendations by giving a free pass in the first round, and it will be years before there are other rounds. <div><br></div><div>This is an example of why many won't participate at ICANN: even if you do and play by the rules and make compromises with other parties, the well-connected parties will take what they can get at the GNSO, disregard any compromise and lobby BoardStaff/GAC for more rights. ICANN does risk revealing the farce of its claimed "bottom up" policymaking when it plays this game.<div><br></div><div>My 2 cents,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear all<br>
<br>
If the goal of appeasing GAC is that it cease 'running around', I
don't see how this strategy will bring anyone closer to this.<br>
<br>
I don't understand how pleasing GAC now (as a SO) or bowing to our
presumed minority position (as a SG) could do any good in the
context of the very serious precedents that are at stake. We should
be working our potential majority partners in the gnso.<br>
<br>
This is (for me) option 1 with the goal of achieving that GAC cease
its "running around" :<br>
<br>
For processual reasons, the whole GNSO should, contrary to what
seems to be the case, stick to its gun. At the very least, it should
be able to get a recognition by GAC of the formal processes that are
part and parcel of multi-stakeholder policy making in exchange for
not sticking to its processual guns with regard asking for a PDP on
this. Perhaps it should also befalls the GAC to find the appropriate
statement that would appease *us*, and not the other way around, in
exchange for our support. <br>
<br>
I would hope we could say to Registries-Registrars interests in the
GNSO: <br>
<br>
"look, we'd like to look not so against all things IP ourselves, as
you seem to want to look not so against GAC yourselves, but there is
this slippery slope of denying existing processes which is more
important. It will come back to bite you in the ass when LEA demands
recommence coming in. Your appeasement won't stop this. <br>
<br>
In fact, this look a lot like a nifty <a href="http://rhetorica.net/heresthetics.htm">heresthetical</a>
manoeuver on the part of GAC where they use concording interests of
pro-IP constituencies with they're own (augmenting their power to
"advise"), combined with the desire of contracted parties to appease
GAC, in order carve out yet more by-passing of formal GNSO
responsabilities. Not sticking to our guns here will be bad for
GNSO. And your appeasement attempt will look foolish then, don't you
think?"<br>
<br>
This could enable GNSO to say, collectively to the GAC: <br>
<br>
look, we'd like to recommend something nice (as you know, some of us
here are "pro" IP) but you should really say something about future
processes that will enable us to say something nice about your
recommendation. We're not in the habit of signing off on unnamed
'future considerations' here. this something nice, should definately
involve something along the lines of 'GAC will no more be ''running
around'' GNSO processes'<br>
<br>
The problem as i see it is that GNSO people were too creative in
finding optional recommendations that seems to effectively safeguard
their role in the process, but they did that too soon. They should
have asked-for and waited for a GAC appeasing-statement before going
about finding creative policy-making solution pressed as they are,
furthermore, by time. That is of course, is the goal of appeasing
GAC is that GAC cease 'running around'<br>
<br>
<br>
Option 2: If it is impossible to be appeased [GAC is non-responsive
or a majority position in GNSO thinks it's still achieving something
by carving in], then I don't see how our SG benefit from "appeasing"
the rest of the GNSO.<br>
<br>
Sure, we don't want to look like [??liberal????hippies??... insert
the adjective you think is relevant] but what are we really
achieving? we are forced to think very fast on a very complicated
set of questions, just not to look too liberal??<br>
<br>
As a rule of thumb, I always consider that if I'm not able to
explicate what I gain, I'm probably not gaining it. Just saying.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
p.s. sorry if this is more confusing a contribution than it is a
helpful one. if that is the case, feel free to ignore this ;) Like
many of you i'm sure, i'm stretched thin on time. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/02/2012 3:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9E3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi
this even more problematic if you take the letter of about 20 IGOs into consideration which more or less ask the same questions not via the GAC but directly.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pritz-04jan12-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pritz-04jan12-en.pdf</a>
It is unclear whether this letter has the support of GAC or not or whether the GAC will raise this issue in San Jose. If you treat IOC and Red Cross in a special way why not other international organisations? The Paris Convention - the letter refers to it - portects also IGOs and has 176 member states. With other words, governments, represented in the GAC, has to consider what they will do with this legally binding convention with regard to new gTLDs. This could lead to a spiral where nobody knows how far this will go. The GNSO WG has concentrated only on Red Cross and IOC (ignoring widely what Konstantinos has said). I am afraid we have here the start of a rather complex process where governments/GAC have a lot of cards in their hands.
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Konstantinos Komaitis [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK">mailto:k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK</a>]
Gesendet: Fr 03.02.2012 19:23
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
I totally agree with you Avri - however, there is this idea that we need to 'please' the GAC, which I totally don't get, but yet again we appear to be the minority. My understanding is that special provisions will be created for these bodies- at least in this round of the applications. I found this also problematic for various reasons: does this mean that we are creating new policies upon the existing and established ones, especially when these established ones are considered 'closed' because the applications have already started? Why is the GNSO placed in such an awkward position? And, why the GAC wants this special deal? Is it the whole of the GAC?
KK
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765">http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765</a>
Selected publications: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038">http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038</a>
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.komaitis.org/">www.komaitis.org</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: ?????????, 3 ??????????? 2012 6:15 ??
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
Hi,
One thing occurs to me as to why there is such pressure to get GNSO to go along. This puts the fig-leaf of Multistakeholder decision on yet another of the decisions where the BoardStaff circumvented the process.
So, Not only do I think this is the wrong thing to do, I think it is also another slip down the slippery slope of BoardStaff decision making that circumvents the Policy process for ICANN.
The existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect IOC and IFRC at the first and even second levels - we do not need to open this barn door.
avri
On 3 Feb 2012, at 08:27, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Both IOC and IFRC have been given an exception for this round of new gTLDs by direct BoardStaff fiat, though it is against every previous policy recommendation and on the advice, for some meaning of 'advice', of just one AC. I just do not understand why they would be granted anything further than that.
avri
On 3 Feb 2012, at 07:30, Timothe Litt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for both.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>