proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT resolution

[Maria Farrell]

I don't know what the procedure is for securing overall NCSG approval, but
I also endorse Avri's statement.

Maria

On 27 September 2012 13:51, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
>
>
> On 27 September 2012 07:47, Andrei Barburas <abarburas at iicd.org> wrote:
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrei Barburas
> >
> > Community Relations Services Officer
> >
> >
> >
> > International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
> >
> > P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
> >
> > NPOC, ICANN member
> >
> >
> > Mobile: +31 62 928 2879
> >
> > Phone: +31 70 311 7311
> > Fax: +31 70 311 7322
> > Website: www.iicd.org
> >
> >
> >
> > People   ICT   Development
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a
> temporary
> >> registration block for the IOC and IFRC. This is the statement I
> propose be
> >> added to the statement indicating the disagreement of the NCSG with that
> >> proposal.
> >>
> >> I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.
> >>
> >> -----
> >>
> >> The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in
> >> IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons:
> >>
> >> 1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be
> made
> >> by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the
> process
> >> rules as established in the ICANN by-laws.
> >>
> >> 2. This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by
> attempting
> >> to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact
> >> gathering and presenting information to the council that can be used in
> >> deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP.
> >>
> >> The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
> >> outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level.
> We
> >> support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal
> among
> >> competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved
> name
> >> policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP
> runs
> >> its course.
> >>
> >> The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that
> >> also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting
> >> such special reservations must include a full discussion of all who
> request
> >> such reservations.
> >>
> >> Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be
> used
> >> solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding
> names
> >> to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------
> >> Avri Doria
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120927/57539a1d/attachment-0001.html>