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

[Milton L Mueller]

Tell me: what procedures, standards, accountability arrangements, etc. ensure that the IO only acts on behalf of "small communities, especially indigenous and poor communities who find an application does harm to their community?" 

It is amateurish politics to think that you can give powers to an entity based on nothing more than the hope that that power will only be used in ways that you think it ought to be used. And please, think for just a few moments about how many other people there are out there, with different values, who hope it will be used in ways that _they_ hope for.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> McTim
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:41 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for
> Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
> 
> 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