- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

Yes. The motion was drafted by staff and at this time, it is unclear exactly what direction the GNSO plans to take, so they have reasonably given a number of options. How the GNSO will decide has not had any discussion that I have been privy to. Opinions welcome. Alan At 02/10/2012 01:06 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Hi Alan: >Thanks for the update. > >When you say 'several variations' to the draft motion, presumably >this refers the bracketed portions in the text, yes? > >And does this mean these will be taken individually for consideration? > >Best, >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Attached is a slightly updated version of the Final Issue Report on >the protection of names of international organizations as well as a >draft motion (with several variations) for the consideration fo the GNSO. > >Alan > >From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> >To: "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org" ><<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:36:30 -0700 >Subject: [council] Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on >the Protection of > the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >Please find attached for the GNSO Council's review and >consideration, a draft motion to initiate a PDP on the Protection of >the Names of International Organizations. > >Also attached is an updated Final Issue Report. The only changes >relate to cleaning up the use of certain definitions (using INGOs of NGOs). > >Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. > >Best regards, > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ > > >From: Margie Milam >Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:53 AM >To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of >International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >We are pleased to submit to the GNSO Council for its review and >consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names >of International Organizations in New gTLDs. This Final Issue >Report follows the closing of the public comment forum on the >Preliminary Issue Report. > >We look forward to supporting the GNSO Council's activities at the >Toronto Meeting with respect to this important issue. > >All the Best, > >Margie Milam > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ >Content-Type: application/msword; name="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on" > Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc" >Content-Description: Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on Protection of > Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP" > on Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc"; size=31232; > creation-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:40:51 GMT"; > modification-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:33:26 GMT" > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 2

Fwd: Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

Attached is a slightly updated version of the Final Issue Report on the protection of names of international organizations as well as a draft motion (with several variations) for the consideration fo the GNSO. Alan >From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:36:30 -0700 >Subject: [council] Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on >the Protection of > the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >Please find attached for the GNSO Council's review and >consideration, a draft motion to initiate a PDP on the Protection of >the Names of International Organizations. > >Also attached is an updated Final Issue Report. The only changes >relate to cleaning up the use of certain definitions (using INGOs of NGOs). > >Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. > >Best regards, > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ > > >From: Margie Milam >Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:53 AM >To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of >International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >We are pleased to submit to the GNSO Council for its review and >consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names >of International Organizations in New gTLDs. This Final Issue >Report follows the closing of the public comment forum on the >Preliminary Issue Report. > >We look forward to supporting the GNSO Council's activities at the >Toronto Meeting with respect to this important issue. > >All the Best, > >Margie Milam > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ >Content-Type: application/msword; name="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on" > Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc" >Content-Description: Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on Protection of > Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP" > on Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc"; size=31232; > creation-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:40:51 GMT"; > modification-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:33:26 GMT" >

3 2

Fwd: Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies. I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held. As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result. Alan >From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 >Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart > >Dear All, > >Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that >summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of >the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations. > >The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements >made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please >review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately >captures the sentiment of your SG/C. > >I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012. > >All the best, > >Margie > >________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >________

5 10

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

The revised version of the final IR also uses the term INGO for international Non-government Organizations which does include the Red Cross - Red Crescent movement as well as the IOC. Alan At 02/10/2012 11:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I am glad to see common sense prevail in the manner in which the >Motion is drafted and I gather that the Group is narrowing by using >the "IGO" to narrow the tests but I would have rather that they have >used IOs and then use the PDP process to narrow the criteria even further. > >Neither Red Cross nor IOC are IGOs. > >Ah well the ball's now in the GNSO Council's court. > >Thanks for the update. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Attached is a slightly updated version of the Final Issue Report on >the protection of names of international organizations as well as a >draft motion (with several variations) for the consideration fo the GNSO. > >Alan > >From: Margie Milam <<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> >To: "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org" ><<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:36:30 -0700 >Subject: [council] Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on >the Protection of > the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >Please find attached for the GNSO Council's review and >consideration, a draft motion to initiate a PDP on the Protection of >the Names of International Organizations. > >Also attached is an updated Final Issue Report. The only changes >relate to cleaning up the use of certain definitions (using INGOs of NGOs). > >Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. > >Best regards, > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ > > >From: Margie Milam >Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:53 AM >To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of >International Organizations in New GTLDs > >Dear All, > >We are pleased to submit to the GNSO Council for its review and >consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names >of International Organizations in New gTLDs. This Final Issue >Report follows the closing of the public comment forum on the >Preliminary Issue Report. > >We look forward to supporting the GNSO Council's activities at the >Toronto Meeting with respect to this important issue. > >All the Best, > >Margie Milam > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________ >Content-Type: application/msword; name="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on" > Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc" >Content-Description: Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on Protection of > Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Motion on the Initiation of a PDP" > on Protection of Names of IGOs and INGOs in New gTLDs.doc"; size=31232; > creation-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:40:51 GMT"; > modification-date="Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:33:26 GMT" > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Fwd: Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

From the GNSO Council list. Alan >Dear All, > >We are pleased to submit to the GNSO Council for its review and >consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names >of International Organizations in New gTLDs. This Final Issue >Report follows the closing of the public comment forum on the >Preliminary Issue Report. > >We look forward to supporting the GNSO Council's activities at the >Toronto Meeting with respect to this important issue. > >All the Best, > >Margie Milam > >_________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_________

3 2

Fwd: [ISOC-AU-mems] itNews: 'Europe slams WHOIS data demands'
by Holly Raiche Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

Hi Everyone An email circulated on the Internet Society of Australia's mailing list - another aspect of the Whois accuracy debate Holly Begin forwarded message: > > > Europe slams WHOIS data demands > Juha Saarinen > Oct 2, 2012 4:27 AM (10 hours ago) > http://www.itnews.com.au/News/317528,europe-slams-whois-data-demands.aspx > > Extensive data retention proposals slammed. > > A European watchdog has opposed moved by the Internet Corporation for > Assigned Named and Numbers (ICANN) to force domain name registrars to > improve accuracy of the WHOIS database. > > Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the European Union's working party on > data protection, told ICANN's chairman and interim CEO in a letter > that the proposed changes to the organisation's registrar > accreditation agreements would likely run contrary to European > citizens' right to privacy. > > News blog Domain Incite, which published the EU letter, said the > changes included forcing registrars to re-verify domain registrant > contact data every year while retaining customer data for two years > after registration ends. > > The changes have been requested by law enforcement, according to > Domain Incite, and is backed up by the Governmental Advisory > Committee (GAC) of ICANN. Australia has a supporting delegate in the > committee. > > The WHOIS database provides public information about website > registration details including contact information and registration. > > It was originally designed to provide contact points for technical > and registration queries but has of late been accessed by law > enforcement to track down criminal activity on the Internet. > > "The fact that WHOIS data can be used for other beneficial purposes > does not in itself legitimise the collection and processing of > personal data for those other purposes," Kohnstamm wrote. > > The re-verification requirement was "excessive and therefore > unlawful", he said. > > Due to WHOIS databases having unlimited public accessibility, contact > details in them have been harvested on a large scale and abused for > spamming, the Working Group said. > > Thanks to the abuse, there is a strong incentive for people to > provide inaccurate contact details. > > ICANN had failed to address the spamming problem, making the proposed > solution a "disproportionate infringement of the right to protection > of personal data". > > A second proposal requiring extensive data retention based on wishes > from law enforcement was also deemed unlawful by the Working Group. > > Under ICANN's propsal, registrars would be forced to retain not only > registrants' personal information for two years after the > registration ceases, but also a raft of other data including phone > and email addresses not in WHOIS, credit card data and communications > identifiers such as Skype handles. > > Extensive logging with source Internet Protocol addresses and HTTP > headers, as well as dates, times, and time zones of communications > and sessions was also suggested. > > Acccording to Domain Incite, ICANN could impose the new requirements > despite EU objections, giving registrars in the European Union the > ability to stay out of the new requirements to comply with local > privacy laws. > > ICANN negotiations are currently being held on the topic have been > underway over WHOIS, whose information is often considered > inaccurate, obfuscated or non-existent. > > > [It doesn't appear that ISOC-AU has previously had a policy on this: > http://www.isoc-au.org.au/Submissions/SubmissionsByTopic.php > > [APF submitted re privacy and Whois: > in 2010: > http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/WhoIs-RCI-101021.pdf > http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/WhoIs-RCI-Anal-1010.pdf > in 2001: > http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/AuDA010321.html > > > -- > Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ > > Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA > Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916 > mailto:Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/ > > Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of NSW > Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University > _______________________________________________ > iamems mailing list > iamems(a)lists.isoc-au.org.au > http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems > > List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>, > <mailto:iamems-request@lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>

2 1

Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

The IOC/RC Drafting Team has put their recommendations out for Public Comment. The initial comment period ends on October 20th (the Saturday immediately after the Toronto ICANN meeting) and the reply period on November 9th. <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-recommendations-28sep…>https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-recommendations-28sep… The ALAC, with some reluctance, supported the statement at its 25 September meeting. The summary of the ALAC position is included within the report. We could let that statement speak for itself, or add further thoughts in the official comment process. Certainly it is an opportunity for those who felt the compromise position should be rejected (likely resulting in the GNSO making no recommendation and leaving it to the Board to decide the outcome as it implied in its recent motion) to publicly voice their position. Alan

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Position on RC/IOC Compromise Recommendation
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

I was asked to summarize the ALAC position on the Drafting Team's compromise position and present it here for your information. Alan >To: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Position on RC/IOC Compromise Recommendation > >As requested yesterday. > >The ALAC has discussed the compromise recommendation proposed by the >RC/IOC DT via e-mail over the last week, generating more traffic on >a single topic than I can recall in recent history. The issue was >also discussed at length during the ALAC Teleconference on 25 September, 2012. > >The was a strong consensus or perhaps unanimity that in the >long-term issue (that is past new gTLD round 1), the issue should be >addressed by a PDP. > >The positions regarding temporary protections pending the outcome of >a PDP were far more varied. Virtually all ALAC members who voiced an >opinion felt that the RC and the IOC should never have been dealt >with as a single issue, but rather should have been subject to >separate evaluations and recommendations. Specifically, there was a >strong belief that humanitarian organizations might deserve a >different level of protection than other types of organizations. >Some ALAC members expressed the view that on balance, no interim >protection should be offered. Others felt that there was sufficient >merit in granting the RC protection that the proposed compromise >position should be supported. > >A formal vote was taken and the outcome was that the ALAC did >support the recommendations. > >Alan

1 0

The threat to TLD expansion nobody talks about
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 27, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

Hello all, While those inside the ICANN bubble (myself among them, on occasion) rant and rave about the the rollout and the very nature of the ICANN new gTLD program, most are ignoring the possibility that much of the expansion will simply be .... irrelevant. Consider one more recent example, the move by the city of New York to use QR codes on public notices: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/09/open-data-day-new-york-… While this is far from a universal act, the city's government has shown that one can reach municipal information easily without knowing _any_ domain name(*). This sends a signal to businesses and others that New Yorkers will be QR-code-savvy, which reduces the need to have easily remembered domain names. More specifically, the .nyc TLD is being undermined before it even launches. Domain names are simply *a* method people use to get to Internet resources. QR codes, URL shorteners, organizational pages on social media sites and especially the various kinds of search engines have enabled Internet users to get around the various problems within the current state of domain names. As public trust in the DNS further declines with an explosion of park pages and defensive registrations, such alternatives will only increase in popularity. It's important to keep this in perspective. As we go through the inevitable fights over Red Cross names, "private" TLDs, registrant accountability, the lack of ccTLD standards, etc, etc, it's useful to remember that Internet users have a unique perspective on the arguments inside the bubble. Anything ICANN does that is spectacularly stupid will be worked around. And if ICANN fails to address the decline in public trust (that the ALAC has been pointing out on a regular basis, on many issues), the public will simply look faster at other paths to what they want from the Internet. (As we hear more comments about the entry of companies such as Amazon and Google into TLD space -- generally decrying their unconventional plans -- I wonder how many consider that these companies are likely more trusted than anyone in the current domain industry. It's no wonder that most of the complaints about the newcomers are coming from those inside the bubble.) - Evan (*) Yes, yes, I know that QR codes require URLs that generally require the DNS as well. However, every QR code on earth - no need an easily remembered domain -- could be serviced within existing TLDs using second and even third level domains.

2 1

Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report back to the DT at its meeting the following day. I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…. The proposal has two parts and is as follows. >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. > >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends >the following: > >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. > >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: > >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international >organizations. > >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. > >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as >possible on this position. > >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note >that the work that has already been done on this issue should >facilitate the process. I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have qualified it above. The rationale is as follows: - in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. - If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this protection, the names can easily be released at that time. - In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to both organizations. - The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection that they would prefer. Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid position that no additional protections should be granted, it is likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit.

11 29