[gnso-igo-wt] Following up on action items from the IGO Work Track's 2 August call
yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 6 20:33:53 UTC 2021
Another personal view,
From an end-user perspective, the most important issue at stake here is end-user confusion, with potentially fatal consequenses, in case off fraudulent use of an IGO acronym. A clear and rapid mechanism needs to be set up, at long last, to deal with such situations. Until Monday, it seemed that we were advancing towards a pragmatic solution that all parties could live with and that would recognize fundamental facts if life like the status of intergovernmental organisations.
As a non-lawyer, I might not see all the fine points, but I wonder why a losing registrant would want to spend money and effort just in order to be told by a court that an IGO has immunity, instead of following the procedure outlined in the proposed Recommendation 2. Nevertheless, I hope that work continues to reconcile Jay’s bullet #3 (which I think refers to Option 3 for Resolution 5, something that unfortunately was rejected by the original IGO/INGO PDP Working Group) and our proposed Rec 2. We can’t afford to kick the can down the road to yet another PDP.
On 6. Aug 2021, at 21.27, David Satola via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>> wrote:
without recourse to address abuse of their identifiers in the DNS, whereby not only IGOs, but potentially defrauded Internet users/private citizens pay the price
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-igo-wt