Re: [ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
Evan, I put the substance of what the GAC is asking for related to the Red Cross in a VERY different category from their advice that the topic should not be subject to a policy development process. I hope that the GNSO ultimately adopts a policy equivalent to what the GAC is asking, and I hope that our GNSO Liaison will act as a voice of reason in the GNSO Council encouraging such action. Further, if they do not, I would hope the Board to reject their advice, because there is no doubt in my mind that what is being asked for is both reasonable and important. Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I have seen other cases where the GAC takes a position that I do not support in the same wholehearted manner as I do the advice on the Red Cross national names. And I would hope that the voice of reason would prevail in those cases with the GAC NOT getting its way. For that we need reasonable processes, checks and balances. Alan At 04/11/2014 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
"Dear governments of the world,
Thank you for your interest in ICANN. Your advice is always welcome, when it is in agreement with our industry compact between domain buyers and sellers.
However, even when the public interest, international treaty and global governmental consensus rarely converge to assert an issue, the aforementioned industry compact is still owed the right to delay, dilute and (should it wish) destroy such initiative within our internal procedures. This is what we call 'multi-stakeholderism'.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Sincerely, ICANN."
Opposing the protection of Red Cross names is simply indefensible outside the ICANN bubble. It makes ICANN a justifiable target of ridicule ... and disruption.
The GAC has already made reasonable compromise, backing away from asserting Olympic and NGO name protection that did not have as much public interest rationale or support. What remains is an easily understood, common sense request that ICANN cannot brush aside without consequence.
ICANN's implementation of multi stakeholder processes deliberately designed a system in which the industry makes policy, and the public interest (through the GAC and ALAC) "advise" after the fact. Slow change has happened, but in many respects (such as the current round of gTLDs), the damage has been done and the only actions left are remedial rather than prevention.
And even those remedial efforts are severely impeded, as At Large has seen first hand; our objection processes and Applicant Support initiatives have clearly failed, despite the community's best good-faith efforts.
The ALAC has a clear and critical interest in supporting the GAC in this matter. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I put the substance of what the GAC is asking for related to the Red Cross in a VERY different category from their advice that the topic should not be subject to a policy development process.
The point is, the GNSO has already had its PDP on the issue, and when given the opportunity did not endorse the necessary protection for the Red Cross. Its report, finished late last year, was full of contradictory positions and different levels of consensus, mixing in the Red Cross protections with those of groups that were far less in need of protection (ie, the International Olympic Committee). And clearly, having done this PDP already, there is an insufficient level of enforcement of Red Cross (and associated org) names at the current time. As these names are not usually protected by trademarks but in many cases by explicit national laws and international conventions, the usual ICANN remedies such as the Trademark Clearinghouse may not be appropriate. If a PDP has already been done, what are the options? Another PDP be initiated for many of the same issues, will take more years to complete, years during which countless fraudulent and misleading names will be registered with no ICANN-endorsed limit or remedy. What evidence exists that raising the issue again as a PDP would achieve a different result from what has already happened? Is such an approach even rational? <https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html> And even if a better result DOES come out of revisiting the process, two or three years from now and burning hundreds more person-hours of volunteer time , how much irreversible damage to the public good and public trust will have happened by th en ? - Evan
On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I have seen other cases where the GAC takes a position that I do not support in the same wholehearted manner as I do the advice on the Red Cross national names. And I would hope that the voice of reason would prevail in those cases with the GAC NOT getting its way. For that we need reasonable processes, checks and balances .
It is notable to me that the GAC is no longer singling out special protection for the International Olympic Committee, which it originally advanced at the same level of urgency as the Red Cross. In the original PDP working group, it was ALAC alone (represented by Alan and me) who differentiated between the two. In my optimistic moments I would like to think we had an influence on the GAC's wise choice to concentrate on the Red Cross. The inevitable conclusion is that it is the process that is broken. A more consultative and inclusive approach than existed might have yielded results that would not have led to this impasse. But so long as ICANN has multiple different classes of stakeholders -- differentiating policy makers and advisors, for instance -- such friction is inevitable. (For what it's worth, I also expressed this view during my interview with the GNSO Review staff during the LA meeting, and proposed a more inclusive structure for the GNSO.) Certainly the GAC has been known to overreach on its requests, but we can deal with that sufficiently if given the appropriate venue. I would remind that the ALAC analysis of the GAC "scorecard" on the new gTLD process, some years back, sometimes sided with the Board, sometimes with the GAC. We were among the few in ICANN to analyze every individual recommendation on its own merits rather than "take sides". Good-faith negotiation and consensus is possible if the will exists -- as well as a framework that does not invite confrontation.
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch