NCSG input on request for special privileges for Red Cross & International Olympic Committee regarding Internet domains

[McTim]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM, warigia bowman <warigia at aucegypt.edu> wrote:
> Plus 1. so the red cross is special then?

Special, yes....deserving of an exception, no.  At least that is the
gist of the post (I think) that Joly +1'ed.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>From From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?= Sat Oct  8 15:09:47 EEST 2011
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2011 14:09:47 +0200
Reply-To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?"Kleinwächter,_Wolfgang"?              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Subject:      AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions 1-7
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C5E7 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi everybody

sorry for my late reply. Very busy schedule the last two weeks since Avri posted the seven questions. Here are my answers for you critical evaluation. I would be thankful for additional questions and comments.

Thanks

wolfgang.


Question 1:
How does one achieve greater participation from NCSG members. What is the responsibility of the Chair/council member in the effort to achieve greater participation.

a. to bring good arguments from a non-commercial user perspective to the broader public debate to make it attractive for potential new members to join;
b. to work closely with related constituencies within ICANN (in particular the At Large community) to encourage them, to become also engaged in NC issues
c. to use outside events (IGF, academic and professional meetings, summer schools etc.) to speak about NC and to attract in particular member of the younger generation and woman also from developing countries to become active.


Question 2:
What is your view on the meaning of non commercial presence and activities in the GNSO?

The majority of the two billion Internet users worldwide are non-commercial users. A lot of them takes it for granted that the Internet, the DNS and other Internet applications works. This creates a special responsibility and duty for the non-commercial constituency within ICANN. It has to proof its legitimacy to act on behalf of the individual non-commercial users and it is the duty of this constituency to guarantee that basic interests of individual Internet users (human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, access etc) with regard to the functioning of the DNS, allocation of IP addresses and management of Internet protocols and root servers are integrated in policies which are developed by ICANN.


Question 3:
What do you foresee as the most important issue for the NCSG during the next year. 2 years?

a. the new gTLD Programm
b. Whois and Privacy Issues


Question 4:
How do you see your role as a representative of the NCSG that elected you. In what way are you to be held accountable to the NCSG membership?

It would be my duty to bring agreed positions of the members of the constituency to the council deliberations. It would be also my duty to report back periodically about the debates and my own role in the discussion. There should be a special "reporting back" agenda item in the NGSC constituency meetings in each ICANN meeting with Q&A.


Question 5: What is your view on the issue of UDRP review? Are there respondents rights that need attention such as the length of time a respondent gets to respond.

The UDRP needs a more compehensive and external review. It shoud become part of the general review under the AoC. There is a need not only to improve the efficiency of the existing UDRP, there is also a need to identify issues which have raised concerns, including the impression of a unbalanced trend in the decisions of the UDRP panels, its independence and neutrality, and the the diversity of UDRP service providers. This includes also an indepedent review whether "forum shopping" is a real threat. This seems in particular important with regard to potential dispute following the introduction of new gTLDs.


Question 6:
What are you views on the new gTLD program that is scheduled to begin accepting applications in Jan. 2012. What, if anything, should be changed in this round? What, if anything, should be changed in the next round?


a. the plan as it is now outrolled for 2012 should get a chance to demonstrate its potential. We have to wait and see how many applications are coming and what results (and unintended side results) the evaluation process will produce. NCSG should insists that from the very first day of the process there should be an independent review process in place for each individual step which would guarantee the highest level of transparency.
b. in the mid term there should be more differentiated conditions and criteria for specifc applicants (developing cuntries, public authorities, NGOs, civil society groups, cultural communities etc.) NSCG should start a discussion about categorization, including a categorie of nom-commercial gTLDs, which should be treated differentily from commercial gTLDs.

Question 7:
In terms of the RAA, what are you views on  modifying that that agreement.  How do you view the relationship betwee the Registrars and the ICANN  Community?

There is a need for an ongoing review of the existing RAA, in particular with regard to new models under the vertical integration option. There is a need to avoid the emergence of dominant market power both on the registry and registrar level and it seems also important o overcame an imbalance in the regional distribution of registrars and registries. An indepedent review group should produce an annual report about market diversity both on the registrar and the registry level.



Wolfgang