RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

You are making here two mistaken: first, I didn't propose any specific 
language. I was saying that there is precedent regarding a review of a new 
mechanism that has been created for new gTDLs and we should use this precedent 
to our advantage. That's all. And, second, you are suggesting that for a review 
to happen there needs to be some sort of a data. This is a somehow narrow 
interpretation of what a review is meant to do. The new gTLDs are, amongst 
other things, about providing options and, if we like it or not, the current 
discussions about IOC/Red Cross, minimize these options for certain communities 
and governments. At some point, the ICANN community will have to consider 
whether the recommendations of this group have limited the options for these 
parties; a review can do that.

I will also like to reiterate the precedent that these protections might set 
and the possibility for other intergovernmental organizations to come and seek 
the same levels of protection. The ICANN Board may have limited this only to 
IOC and the Red Cross but no one can be certain whether ICANN will continue to 
do so, especially if pressure is exercised upon it by other IGOs. Remember that 
as far back as in 2003, IGOs wanted to get special protection for their names - 
back then it was more difficult because there was no precedent; I suspect that 
after the recommendations for these two entities come out and especially if 
they provide them with a special status, there will be a much stronger 
justification. So, yes, I think we should make the review of these 
recommendations mandatory. As for the language, I will leave that to the entire 
group to draft.

Thanks

Konstantinos

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Πέμπτη, 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 10:19 μμ
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

Konstantinos,

I don't think that the reference to URS is in line with the wording that you 
propose (restrict applicability to first round and mandatory review).

The recommendation for the URS was "ICANN will conduct a review of the URS one 
year after the first date of operation. There is no requirement that the URS 
should automatically expire or terminate after any set period of time. ICANN 
will publish examination statistics for use in the review of the URS."

That is equivalent to saying the IOC/RC protection will be for all future 
rounds unless the (mandatory) review says otherwise.

The differences are substantive:

- In the URS case, it explicitly says that the URS as proposed will continue 
and not have a pre-determined end-date (obviously unless it is later explicitly 
terminated or changed). If for whatever reason, the review is not done as 
required (such slippages are not unheard of in ICANN, we would not be back at 
this point (ie a last minute crisis to satisfy the GAC) again for round 2.

- There will be data on which to base a re-evaluation. It is not clear (to me 
in any case) that there will be sufficient public data for the GNSO to do an 
evaluation.

- In the case of the URS, it is pretty certain that the process will exercised 
within a year (or at least, that was the expectation). In our case, it is not 
at all certain that there will be cases to evaluate, even if we do get data.

My preference is to review IF the perception at the time is that it is 
required, based on the other issues that will also inevitably need to be 
adjusted and their perceived relative importance. To do otherwise seems like a 
make-work activity that I have little taste for.

I can live with a requirement for a review as long as its delay does not 
trigger holding this exact WG all over again, perhaps with no more data or 
insight. Moreover, it is imperative that we be sure that if the GNSO is to do a 
review, the GNSO will have sufficient access to records to allow it to do it 
based on facts and not rumour. And preferably only done if there are cases to 
review.

Alan


At 16/02/2012 09:35 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

Thanks for this Chuck - think it is really helpful.

I have made a couple of tweaks, specifically:

I have deleted under b) the Reserved name phrase because the way it was written 
it sounded as if these names were given a double status: they could be regarded 
as either a 'Reserved name# or a 'modified reserved name' - I think we for the 
purposes of option 7 we were regarding them as 'modified reserved names'

I also have incorporated a small sentence on what additional rights an 
applicant may have in order to apply for the string.

On a general note: I would insist that we make review of these recommendations 
mandatory. There is a pretty good precedent for that, re the URS where there is 
a provision that we should review the URS a year after its operation. In my 
mind, considering that this recommendations seek to reflect international 
statutes and conventions, it is of paramount important that we make sure they 
are open for a review to establish their legitimacy and appropriateness.

Thanks

Konstantinos