AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[Nicolas Adam]

Dear all

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.

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.

This is (for me) option 1 with the goal of achieving that GAC cease its 
"running around" :

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.

I would hope we could say to Registries-Registrars interests in the GNSO:

"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.

In fact, this look a lot like a nifty heresthetical 
<http://rhetorica.net/heresthetics.htm> 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?"

This could enable GNSO to say, collectively to the GAC:

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'

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'


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.

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??

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.

Nicolas
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.


On 03/02/2012 3:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> 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.
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pritz-04jan12-en.pdf
>
> 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 [mailto:k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK]
> Gesendet: Fr 03.02.2012 19:23
> An: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 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
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> Website: www.komaitis.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: ?????????, 3 ??????????? 2012 6:15 ??
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 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:
>
>> 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:
>>
>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120203/4042dc0d/attachment.html>