Greogry: I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the statements below. While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end. Wolfgang: This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets special rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with additional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later. To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument. And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the board. As an African Union member state I would raise the issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controversial discussions. Thank you. Wolfgang