ICANN Board Rationale posted to explain its rejection of RC / IOC request for special privileges in DNS

[Norbert Klein]

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./
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120428/eed3b567/attachment-0001.html>