Sala, I do not have the time to reply in detail to your long communique, but a few points may be appropriate: - It is not the GNSO but the IOC/RC Drafting Team that has issued a consensus call. - Regarding whether other IGOs (note IOC is not actaully an IGO, but close) will later qualify for additional protections. I will not try to guess at what the GAC may do at some later date, but so far they have not put other groups in the same pot, despite some of their members calling for such action. I call your attention to the briefing paper that the Board used (among other things) to make its original decision. Specifically, that there were not other organizations that seemed to qualify under both international treaty AND national laws. The paper which was redacted from the Board briefing materials was released a while ago. See www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.pdf. - Although the issue of IGOs is not new, even if the GNSO had acted on the 2007 proposal to create a new (or modify an existing) dispute resolution mechanism, we would likely still be in the same boat today with regard to protecting names at the 2nd (or 1st) level. The dispute mechanism, if it existed, would allow IGOs to fight registrations that potentially conflicted (such as typo-squatting or used the name in conjunction with other words). So that would have protected the names after the fact as the UDRP does for trademarks.ANd even if we now give protection against registering exact strings of IGO names, there would still be a need for an IGO-friendly dispute resolution mechanism. Alan