Thanks Carlton, my comments to yours follow: Variants for RCRC names - they are already included in the list the GAC supplied and already in the Guidebook. A-5/6 5 is for the full name, 6 for acronym. The 189 country names were never mentioned until Durbin, and then only for the "formal name" - they later added the normal names (ie Canadian Red Cross Society vs Canadian Red Cross). The group generally lost patience and said if they were not paying attention to what was protected in the AG, then tough. So the token being tossed is the weak protection in the TMCH. It is pretty much assumed that the Scope 1 names will have stronger protection. C-6: The TMCH is now obliged to honour variants if the registry does. That being said, it is unclear how many IGOs will put forward the name in Chineses (current provision in the recommendation is only for 2 languages). D-6: not sure whether the concept of acronyms applies in pictogram languages! F-1: If adopted, this would place IGO acronyms such as WHO and ISO as ineligible for TLDs. F-2: I supported this because it is far preferable to simply blocking these names at the top level which is the current Board default. A fee waiver presumes there is NO blocking, something that we have strongly supported. A means test is not likely going to fly. F-5: A means test to avoid a charge in the hundreds of dollars? Regardless, I don't know how you apply a means test to organizations, such as Unicef or the Red Cross which have huge budgets. If a few who don't deserve it squeak through, so be it. Alan At 28/08/2013 01:29 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

Hi Alan: Please see my comments. Where I follow your position I note 'CAS: Support'. And in cases where I think additional requirements must be considered to support your position, I have asked the question.

Best, -Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: 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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@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+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments from" Carlton.docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename= "IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments from Carlton.docx" X-Attachment-Id: f_hkwtipk41