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

[Milton L Mueller]

> 
> On 8 Feb 2012, at 14:10, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> 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?"
>
Avri wrote: 
> I believe this would be adhered to for several reasons:
> 
> 1. that is the basis on which these community interest objections can be
> filed as documented in the guidebook and in the policy that guides the
> guidebook.
> 2. if the IO attacks on a different basis, it can be thrown out as a
> frivolous objection just as any other group's can, as documented in the
> guidebook
> 3 this is not happening in a dark room, but in an environment where the
> entire community, including you, can read the objections, watch the
> process and create incredible political (both amateur and professional)
> hardship for the IO who goes astray.  In fact in a case where an
> Objection is done inappropriately and not thrown out a frivolous, a
> group such as the NCSG can offer to add content and support the the
> applicant response.
> 
> But you do bring up a good point.  We have not seen the written guidance
> for the IO yet, nor the written guidance for the those handling the
> objection processes.  We should make sure that this information is

[Milton L Mueller] so I'm confused. Above, you make what seems to be a very good point about the documentation of the policy in the guidebook and our ability to object to unsupported uses of the OI's powers. Then, you tell us that there is no written documentation. Perhaps you can clarify. 

If there is clear written guidance then it is not as bad as it could be, although ICANN does NOT have an "independent judiciary" that one can take a dispute to if in fact the IO misbehaves. And if the IO misbehaves in a way that would ingratiate powerful interests, ICANN staff, or his/her own whims, all you are telling us is that we have the opportunity to scream our heads off. And we have ample precedents for the effectiveness of that strategy.


> vetted by the community and that it does contain the safeguards that you
> require.  We are not about to make the IO go away in this round (I
> personally support the idea and always have), but we may still have a
> lot to say about how this function is run - as long as we demand that
> say forcefully and persistently enough.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> >
> >> -----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
> >