[gnso-igo-ingo] Reactions to first meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Finally got to listen to the first meeting.

Feel like I have missed a fast moving train.  This note constitutes my chasing 
of that runaway train.

One clue to doing a PDP quickly: don't short change the planning and scheduling 
stage. 

Some points:

- I think that the start staff made to the charter went in the wrong direction. 
It is not reasonable to render the subject of IOC, IFRC, RCRC, IGO, and INGO 
asunder.  The first goal of the PDP as I understand it, is to establish the 
policy bases for special reservation status. This does not mean there its just 
one basis, there could be several valid bases. Once we have the basis set, then 
we can figure out who belongs to which qualified category. Specifically, we 
need the something like the following work items:

-- establish the bases under which ICANN should expand its reserved names list, 
or to create a special reserved names list, to include IOC, IFRC, RCRC, IGO, 
and INGO related names.

-- decide on whether the names should be added to the existing reserved names 
list or a new list(s) should be created.

-- develop a policy recommendation on how determinations can be made concerning 
which organizations meet the bases recommended above.

- this is in addition to the two I already recommended, something like:

-- do an impact analysis on each of the recommendations, if any, for rights, 
competition etc. as defined in the PDP

-- determine how incumbent registries should meet the new policy 
recommendations, if any.

- note: splitting IOC/RCRC from the rest, its a prediction by the staff of 
something that should be decided by the WG.

- We shouldn't have a Jan 31 goal. For better or worse those recommendations 
have been made by the DT. They recommended a moratorium and the doing of  PDP 
that should be done before first delegation. Though I disagreed with that 
recommendation in part, that is done and in comment review. Why rehash? As Alan 
says caking that a deliverable is a program for failure.

- do  IOC and RCRC really want to remain joined at the hip for the work in this 
PDP?

- just because IOC/RCRC have asserted a claim based on treaties related to 
their marks, and legal has started that this assertion does not apply to IGOs, 
does not mean that the assertion has legal bearing on TLDs or registrations at 
the second level. I find it curious that there has not been any case law 
presented on the illegality of IOC/RCRC references used in domain names.  If 
indeed these do run contrary to international and national law, where are the 
non-trademarks cases that defend these assertions?  This its perhaps part of 
the legal research that needs to be done.  GAC and IOC/RCRC assert it is 
_illegal_ to use certain words in domain names - in which cases has this been 
argued and found to be the case? As I have argued elsewhere while the GAC its 
many things, it is not an international tribunal; for those in doubt, please go 
back to the comments made by GAC members during MAPO/REC6 discussions.

- speaking of legal review and advice for the PDP, developing the questions to 
ask should be one of the work items for the PDP. Specifically 

-- determine whether further legal advice its necessary, and if so, develop a 
set of specific questions.


- as for the organization of the group I recommend a Co-chair arrangement, such 
as was successfully used in IRTP-C.  one took the lead on substance and running 
the meetings, the other took the lead on process and schedule and of course the 
backed each other up.  I think it is the only way to do a forced march of PDP.

~~~
avri