<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear fellow councillors,<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<h1 class="western" style="widows: 8; page-break-after: auto"
align="JUSTIFY">
<font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span
style="font-weight: normal">4.5.3</span></u></font></font><font
size="3"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></font><font
color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span style="font-weight:
normal">If
registry operators that indicated in their applications
for their
TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name (“</span></u></font></font><font
color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u>Geo
TLDs</u></font></font><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><u><span
style="font-weight: normal">”)
<i>and representatives of the Intellectual Property
Constituency</i>
recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration
program (...)<br>
</span></u></font></font></h1>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice 4.0.0 (Win32)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
H1.western { font-family: "Cambria"; font-size: 16pt }
H1.cjk { font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; font-size: 16pt }
H1.ctl { font-family: "Cambria"; font-size: 16pt }
--</style><br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time,
so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems
down the line.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Best regards,
Volker Greimann
</pre>
</body>
</html>