ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

  • To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:03:36 +0200
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1380560621; x=1381424621; bh=95jL4hs/pTZA 19vav3WsleXgB2pT0541p+o6ZyIruws=; b=DXnSFhLboX/3uUkyq2EMc+N9BthC 0pbhPHr/DOigUsY7XIKyqdlOKD2KCsrP/EI5Qno70iH4lbGdZPUsC5aTr6Ed8Icw XvQlLOw8iULuKTKKiah0GT6H+OxboR4oEpaZn0ssJwbK7fHvXId4j71msuNvG+Wa SDXxxrJHbdsnJX4=
  • In-reply-to: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65C54AC8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65C54AC8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8

Dear fellow councillors,

in the last week ICANN has released a final draft version of the TMCH RPM Requirements, which contains in section 4.5.3 a paragraph that I find to be questionable:

 _4.5.3__If registry operators that indicated in their applications for
 their TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name ("__Geo TLDs__")
 /and representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency/
 recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration program (...)

Apparently, ICANN staff is considering to give one constituency special consideration. While the subject at hand is probably closest to the specific interests of that one constituency, giving any one constituency or any part thereof an effective veto over a subject matter that still has relevance to the other constituencies and stakeholder groups is highly problematic and contrary to the spirit of the multi-stakeholder principle. ICANN staff should consider all stakeholders equally and not cater to a single stakeholder group. It would be different if such a recommendation came from the GNSO council itself.

Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time, so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems down the line.

I feel this topic needs to be raised on the council level as this is only the most recent example of ICANN staff acting unilaterally in favoring one interest over others.


Best regards,

Volker Greimann

Attachment: Change-Pro Redline - IRI_48570_v12 and IRI_48570_v16.doc
Description: MS-Word document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>