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

[Maria Farrell]

+1 from me.

Maria


On 18 September 2013 09:28, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with you, so much time has already been spend on this topic and
> I'm almost convinced the final decision has already been taken. So I agree
> with your statement and support it for putting it forward.
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 17-sep.-2013, om 23:31 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130918/2e9c6001/attachment.html>