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

[McTim]

Hi Avri,

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> I tend to disagree with part of this sentiment.
>
> I agree that using the IO for the purposes of the IOC or the IFRC would be a 'yuk'.  Both have amble resources beyond what they use for their core missions to take care of this themselves.


While I agree that both orgs could fight their own corner on this,
both orgs arguably have significant communities of interest that they
work with (RC volunteers/Olympic athletes) who would perhaps fit the
definitions of "community" in the Community Objections criteria listed
in the AG.  The IO could then object on their behalf if for some
reason they did not want to prosecute an objection themselves.


>
> I do, however, see positive value in an IO that is willing to take up the issues of small communities, especially indigenous and poor communities, who find an application does harm to their community, complain about it during the comments, but who cannot afford either the rigor or the cost of a full objection.  The key to not including lists of the protected is the availability of an objection process that serves all.  An objection process that is only available to wealthy organizations does not satisfy the needs of all those who may be injured by a particular application.

Full ACK


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel