proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT resolution

[Adam Peake]

Support the statement.

However, penultimate paragraph, also aware that other IGOs demand
these privileges... and it also seems to suggest the IOC's
humanitarian :-)  The 20+ IGOs that have been hassling ICANN are using
IOC/RC as example to support their claims (and, FWIW, in the Arab
region statements for WCIT note ICANN's inability to protect IGOs as a
problem that ITU/State oversight would solve)

Anyway, support.

Adam



On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:42 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