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

Wed Sep 18 13:48:41 EEST 2013

I agree with some minor reservations with the final report and have nothing against Avris minority statement. The report could have been clearer but in a multistakeholder environment final results are based on "take and give" and if we support the final outcome of this very complex and complicated working grouo we demonstrate also our ability to enter into rough consensus at the end of the day. 

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von joy
Gesendet: Mi 18.09.2013 11:33
An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.

agreed - thanks for your work on this Avri.
Joy

On 18/09/2013 8:16 p.m., William Drake wrote:

	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 <http://www.ncuc.org/> 
	william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
	  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
	***********************************************************

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