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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

And this for free, as we get $0,00 from Icann! :)

--c.a.

On 04/27/2012 10:37 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
> 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./
>>
>
>