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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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