No additional policy protections for IGOs

[Jay Chapman <jay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for allowing comment.

I encourage the group to defend fundamental property rights against those
who are never-satisfied and habitually seeking expansion of protections
that go far beyond what is reasonable or necessary.

Mr. Kirikos comments are concise and correct:

"It's disturbing that this workgroup is even *considering* making
enormous and profound changes
to the rights of existing registrants of short domains (acronyms, etc.) in
existing gTLDs. .com has been in existence since 1985, nearly 30 years. The
UDRP has existed since 1999. If there had been substantial abuse of those
domains, there was ample time for IGOs to assert their rights via existing
processes and laws.
--
As long as such transfers do not violate the law, ICANN should keep its nose
out of such matters and not interfere, especially when there are no good policy
reasons to do so (i.e. there needs to be supporting economic and statistical
data in the event of such profound policy changes, as per the Affirmation of
Commitments)."


Sincerely,
Jay Chapman