Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

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: Παρασκευή, 3 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 6:15 μμ
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.
>