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

[William Drake]

Not from me?a PDP on reserved names seems pretty obvious at this point.

Bill

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130918/cea7fbc3/attachment.html>