[At-Large] GNSO Council
evan at telly.org
Sun Nov 18 16:02:01 UTC 2012
I agree with Adam.
It is the Board's massive tactical error in brinksmanship to have forced an
"all or none" approach to the IOC and Red Cross, in which case the answer
was "if that is the only choice, then the answer is 'none' ".
In so easily bowing to pressure from lobbyists and the GAC above the
interests of the rest of the community, ICANN's Board has circumvented any
thoughtful conversation on how to protect non-trademark names in the public
interest. It bears complete responsibility for the embarrassment it has
already brought upon the organization in this regard.
On 18 November 2012 10:12, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>wrote:
> Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting temporary
> protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the next Board
> meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?
> Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not accepted)
> amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution - while at the same
> time I maintain the point that we should not open the door to different
> categories of future reservations other than those already included in the
> guidelines until a PDP produces a recommendation.
> (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before deciding
> the vote was valid)
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the At-Large