Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
- To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
- From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:12:15 -0400
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:28 PM, HASSAN Ayesha wrote:
> To help reach a statement we can all support, I propose the following:
> "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in
> the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in
> addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs.
> The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the
> substance of the report at Public comment space
With my 3rd and final post of the day (until 2 hours from now when
things reset in my timezone!), I'd like to say that I oppose the above
language, and reaffirm my support for the balanced language I
There are folks like myself who are disgusted by the entire IRT
process, and have said so in plain language that no one can
misinterpret ("an abomination, wholly unbalanced, etc."). Many others
feel the exact same way in other constituencies (NCUC, ALAC, the
public, registrants, etc.). While IRT members put on a brave face
saying "we simply do not understand the report", that's silly. We
fully understand the report, and its implications. We know the IRT
could have done better, but intentionally took a hard line. These
"compromises" that they speak of do not pass the sniff test, when they
make plainly false arguments in attempts justify the lack of due
process for legitimate registrants.
Tell me what specific laws a URS provider is breaking when I invite
them, via an opt-in fax, to notify me of a complaint via fax? How is a
legitimate URS complainant hurt by giving the other side actual notice
of a complaint?
The IRT team has no good response. Instead of dancing around the
issues and scheming on their private mailing lists and in their
private meetings, they should spend more time listening and more time
re-drafting and bringing in more participants in a public process.
The IRT was not a "productive step forward." One should be embarrassed
by their entire process, and their conclusions.
However, if one re-reads my proposed statement:
it (1) expresses appreciation, (2) expressly notes that the IP
constituency led the entire process, (3) notes that more works needs
to be done to reflect views of domain registrants and other
stakeholders besides the IP constituency, (4) notes the proper role of
the GNSO in policy development, and (5) does so with diplomatic
language that doesn't express the true disgust many of us actually
Ayesha's statement, though, only captures elements (1) and (5) of the
above, while injecting the view that it's a "productive step forward"
that many of us disagree with.
If the BC is to express the views of BUSINESS STAKEHOLDERS, and not
just the IP holders, and is to garner the respect of other
constituencies, ICANN participants and the community, as not being
simply a clone of the IP constituency, our statement cannot simply
give tacit approval of the IRT report as Ayesha's statement would be
It would undermine the legitimacy of our constituency if we did not
expressly note that more works needs to be done, and that it should be
done through the GNSO. A terrible precedent would be set which would
undermine the entire policymaking role of the GNSO if individual
constituencies like the IP Consituency directly set policy in secret.
How would we react if the Registry Constituency or the Registrar's
Constituency made policy directly to the ICANN Board, circumventing
In conclusion, I cannot and do not support Ayesha's proposed statement.