[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?

avri

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
> or that of the NCSG?
> 
> Thank you.  B
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
> they are what they are.
> 
> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I
> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
> 
> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection
> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
> making by all and sundry.
> 
> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
> but I personally won't do so.
> 
> I will however, file two minority statements:
> 
> - one the nature of reserved names.  
> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
> registries
> 
> ----
> 
> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:
> 
> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
> 2 orders of magnitude. 
> 
> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to
> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
> relevant IGO or IGNO.  
> 
> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
> should be implemented. 
> 
> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names
> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on
> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
> 
> ----
> 
> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
> 
> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent
> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer
> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
> 
> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a
> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
> 
> ----
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>