proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT resolution

[Edward Morris]

Thank you for your timely and hard work Avri. I agree wholeheartedly with
this statement.

It does strike me,  as someone relatively new to this process, that too
often attempts are made at ICANN to ignore established procedures and hope
nobody notices. It's as if the organization did not learn anything from the
.XXX fiasco.

One can anticipate litigation on an unprecedented, for ICANN, scale
following selection of the new gTLDs. For anyone challenging ICANN's
decisions,  any changes to rules that do not follow established procedure
are a gift from above, providing proof of an organization whose decisions
are arbitrary and not rule bound. Moving forward without a proper PDP not
only is wrong, it  could cost ICANN greatly in future cases completely
unrelated to the IOC/ICRC issue.



On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:42 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/20120927/28ba258d/attachment-0001.html>