On 5 November 2016 at 19:16, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

The IGOs (et al) assert by international treaty a higher or alternate force -- than the usual common and legal use of the term "trademark" -- embedded in international law to protect their marks.

​Voila. The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the rest of the world -- sees name protection as nothing more than a matter of trademark; one of its stakeholder groups exist for no other reason than to assert this. So anything else is deemed out of scope.​ In addition to ALAC supporting Red Cross protection in 2012-13 (in opposition to most of the GNSO), there have been some within At-Large who identified other non-traditional forms of intellectual property used in the world (such as aboriginal traditional wisdom); they too were also blown off. But At-Large doesn't have the "or else" threat that governments possess, so its issues can be -- and have been -- harmlessly ignored.) ​As Barry noted, ICANN was alerted about the IGO issue in 2011.​ The current outrage at bypassing process conveniently forgets that once upon a time they tried to play the game by the usual rules and were blown off. So the conventional process failed. Start all over again!

​Not necessarily. As I have repeatedly mentioned, the concept of the Cross-Community Working Group is a great step ​in the right direction as it brings in other ​concerned ​ groups as equal, not subservient, to the GNSO's. It ap p​ ears to have worked well for the ​IANA ​ transition. Eventually the PDP must evolve towards a CCWG-like structure if ​more​ IGO -t​ ype of conflict is to be avoided going forward. ​​ I t is too late to use this to claw back some of ICANN's most critical core mistakes (such as the choice to get involved in name protection at all). But going forward, expanding decision-making beyond the domain buyer-seller compact is critical going forward. ​ ​- Evan