[At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?

[bzs at TheWorld.com]

On November 4, 2016 at 19:08 karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
 >     Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely
 >     within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS.
 > 
 > IGO name protection is not a DNS issue; it ought to be far outside ICANN's
 > scope.  To conclude otherwise is to make ICANN the protector of all names, for
 > everyone who expresses a desire for protection - in other words the worldwide
 > name cop.  That's would be a massive expansion of an already bloated scope.

Unfortunately that cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn,
that ship has sailed, possibly off the ends of the earth.

We have TMCH, special rights for ICRC and Olympics, URS, UDRP,
geographic names, community names, etc.

Now because a problem seems hard ICANN can wash their hands of it?

I tend to agree with the principle that ICANN should never have
ventured into this.

I expressed this in strong terms to a couple of board members right
after the San Francisco ICANN (2011) open meeting.

Someone had gone to the microphone and gave a heartfelt speech about
how .KIDS must be protected for the children etc. And a couple of
board members at the dais responded that this was assuredly their
intent (I assume transcripts are available.)

I said I am going to buy the board a large unabridged dictionary and
they can and should begin going through it entry by entry, all 470,000
or so words (source: Mirriam-Webster), indicating ICANN policy on each
word. Because that's where this is going.

And, now, has gone.

Too late. We're here. One can't at this late date wave off GAC et al
because all this was never a good idea.

That reeks of disingenuousness at this point.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*