Opinions? Fwd: [] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS

[Nicolas Adam]

Something like the berkman study would help if there would be lots of 
litterature to classify and assess. But I suspect there will be scarce 
learned-opinions on the matter as of yet. Which means that the 
contracted learned opinion will be among the very first ones, and i do 
not think this would be wise.

The only way this would be wise would be a consortium of legal scholars 
giving all possible interpretation angles, within a wide mandate to do 
so. Folks let's not forget that the legal world is not laid on a 
presumed pre-political or pre-social matrix and that in most 
circumstances, it can just not be *found*, it has to be interpreted.

Furthermore, the determination of the interrelation between ICANN and 
different levels of legal juridiction is very much a political 
determination. Pretending that it could be legally *found* by a 
contractor is just another political way of trying to assert it. The 
fact that it is a political way that denies its political nature doesn't 
change its nature in the least bit. The political arena where the 
political games become played by pretending that the political arena 
doesn't exist is a sorry one indeed.

I'm unsure on which other options I would like to pursue. Maybe think 
about them all still ;(

Nicolas

On 19/07/2012 9:28 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Excellent suggestion!
>
> Alain
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp 
> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>     How about a variation of 5, contract with
>
>     international law firm "to conduct a legal analysis to
>     substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law
>     and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to
>     protect IOC and RCRC names by law."
>
>     Not ICANN legal counsel.  Tender for an international legal firm
>     (consortium of legal scholars?) to conduct analysis (there's about
>     $357m in the TLD moneybox)
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>
>     At 11:23 AM -0400 7/18/12, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>         Begin forwarded message:
>
>             From: Brian Peck <<mailto:brian.peck at icann.org
>             <mailto:brian.peck at icann.org>>brian.peck at icann.org
>             <mailto:brian.peck at icann.org>>
>
>
>             Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for
>             Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS
>
>             Date: 18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT
>
>             To: "<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>             <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>             <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>"
>             <<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>             <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>             <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>
>
>
>
>             List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new
>             gTLDS
>             In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call,
>             please find below a list of possible approaches that have
>             been proposed to date for moving forward in responding to
>             the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and IOC names at the
>             second level in new gTLDS:
>
>             1.      Maintain the status quo and not provide any new
>             special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no
>             changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved
>             names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).
>             2.      Develop recommendations to implement the GAC
>             proposal such as extending protection to all or a subset
>             of RCRC names only, all or a subset of IOC names only or,
>             to both sets of each organization¹s names.
>             3.      Consider the proposal to not provide any new
>             protections now and wait to see if any additional
>             protections may be necessary after the delegation of the
>             first round new gTLD strings and/or consider lowering
>             costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( i.e., Thomas
>             Rickert¹s proposal)
>             4.      Consider possible additional protections for the
>             RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP on the protection of
>             names for international organizations
>             5.      Ask ICANN General Counsel¹s office to conduct a
>             legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is
>             clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would
>             require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC
>             names by law.
>
>
>
>             Please let us know if you have any questions or need
>             anything further at this time.  Thanks.
>
>             Best Regards,
>
>             Brian
>
>             Brian Peck
>             Policy Director
>             ICANN
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca 
> <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org 
> <http://www.chasquinet.org>
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120720/30dfc20f/attachment-0001.html>