[council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

[Volker Greimann]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130930/6d643a1d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Change-Pro Redline - IRI_48570_v12 and IRI_48570_v16.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 96768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130930/6d643a1d/Change-ProRedline-IRI_48570_v12andIRI_48570_v16.doc>