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

[David Cake]

On 04/02/2012, at 12:24 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> I don't agree with granting any additional rights to either of these organizations.  They haven't even tried to show why the existing rules are insufficient to protect their interests and it would be a terrible precedent to set to encourage this kind of "special privilege" beggaring.

	I agree. I'm not ruling out that they might be able to make that argument, but they haven't really tried to make that argument in any detail. The GNSO is supposed to be the policy making body that looks at policy issues in detail, and it should demand the IOC and RC make their case like anyone else. 

>  ICANN shouldn't encourage special interests to lobby for special privileges like we see here.  Existing and multi-stakeholder processes are in place for protecting rights and making policies.  This is just an end-run around the multi-stakeholder process (as others have already said) and undermine ICANN's credibility as a multi-stakeholder forum to privilege special interests like this.  BoardStaff already threw-out the bottom-up GNSO recommendations by giving a free pass in the first round, and it will be years before there are other rounds.  

	And I think this also applies to the idea that the IOC and Red Cross shouldn't be considered separately - saying that the two should be considered together is pretty saying we don't about the merits of their position, we only care that the GAC wants it. it is abandoning both the multi-stakeholder model, and good policy development. 

	Cheers

		David