I should have mentioned this on the ALAC call today, but forgot. The IGO-INGO PDP WG has issued a consensus call on a number of types of support for protection of IGO-INGO names and acronyms. I am attaching my position here, and would welcome input on to what extent others support these views. By way of explanation, I answered a number of them as "Can live with". This tends to have one of two meanings: - I think it is stupid, but not harmful. An Example is allowing the future application for TLDs such as .unitednationsinternationalchildrensemergencyfund or .worldhealthorganization. - I think that there is simply no need. An example is the blocking of .redcross, when we could simply have a free objectiopn process to ensure that such a TLD is only allowed by the IGO-INGO. I presume it will be treated as "support" in the final analysis. I supported all use of the TMCH. This is a very weak form of protection and do not think it will cause any real harm. I did not support Permanent claims notices unless TMs are also granted this (no chance!). I am prepared to present these as my personal positions, but would be glad to include some or all ALAC members if support is provided to me. There is not sufficient time to do a formal vote. You can agree or disagree with some or all of my positions. And given a good rationale, I am pleased to change any of them (they were answered VERY quickly!) If you have any questions, each item has an identifier of the form A-1 (for the first item) and F-7 for the last). As an aside, this set of protections, even if all approved, is not likely to satisfy the GAC. Even the Board has suggested that SOME IGO acronyms may be worthy of protection. It does go further than the GAC proposals in that it does provide some level of support for INGOs such as OXFAM or MSF. Alan