Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organizations

[McTim]

Hi David,

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>
>         The arguments against are all similar/equivalent.
>        The arguments for are different, however.
>        I think the position can be argued that treaties/legislation
> granting special rights to the IOC and RC have strong arguments against
> them, they have nevertheless been ratified/passed and it is not ICANNs
> position to reopen the issue but simply to acknowledge decisions already
> made.



International treaty rights give special privileges in the DNS?

I thought that was done by RFC?

.example as well as example.org for instance.




> While the other rights being asked for are not currently reflected in
> legislation or treaty, and it IS within ICANNs purview to review (and
> reject if appropriate) requests to grant new rights.
>        I'm not saying I personally take this position. I personally think
> the IOC request is an ambit claim and the case in favour is insufficient.
> But I think that someone who takes the IOC and RC treaty justification
> seriously could quite consistently accept the IOC and RC positions, while
> rejecting the other IGOs seeking to protect their aconyms.
> Personally, I think the RC case for special treatment is considerably
> stronger than the IOCs, and the IOCs case far stronger than other other
> IGOs. I very much think the three different cases should be argued on their
> respective merits.
>

Everybody thinks they are special, and everybody wants a pony.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111220/011ff407/attachment-0001.html>