Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
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.
Dear Alan, Thank you for your email. These are preliminary thoughts: I am aware of the Policy implications of creating an exception. However, I have had more time to mull, muse and reflect on the matter. I realised that the legitimate fear of creating an exception that could open the floodgates for all kinds of protection of "names" and "marks" that could possibly make the reservation of names policy or practices controversial and extremely difficult. However, having thoroughly weighing the matter, I find that it is not within my ambit to worry about that as that is within the Board's remit. My focus and my concern should be based on end users. I find that there are end users in many parts of the world whose lives have been saved through the generous work of humanitarians such as the International Red Cross. Whilst I believe that International Red Cross should be given the privileges and protections afforded to it, the same should not be given to the International Olympics Committee as these are two different beasts. This Humanitarian cause is recognised by countries all over the world and all countries are beneficiaries. One may argue that making an exception for International Red Cross would be opening the gate for other humanitarian causes. That being said, I find myself being persuaded by Jovan Kurbalija's piece, see: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/red-cross-and-internet-governance-cause I recognise that even within the APRALO region there have number of catastrophic disasters that have plagued the region in recent times within which our ALSes were affected and millions of other end users. My view is that enabling Red Cross to reserve the name would enable it to serve end users better. Additional comments are inline. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
I suggest that the two be de-linked via a future PDP. I think this a tactic for IOC to ride on the exception created for Red Cross.
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Hi Alan, Thanks for the heads up. Your approach and rationale sound quite reasonable. I am reminded of the work done that led to this: *- 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.*
In my personal opinion, ICANN's senseless refusal to delink does not negate the need to continue to maintain these are two separate issues. At one level, I feel strongly enough about it that if forced the choice to protect both or neither, I would advocate to choose neither -- so convinced am I regarding the harm done by protecting the IOC, based on our previous work. But this approach sounds unlikely to gain traction ICANN-wide, so what you propose is OK with me as a second choice. - Evan
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Dear Alan, I support your recommendation and appreciate the rationalization that accompanied the recommendation. I agree with both Sala and Evan that the "linking" of the IOC and the RC is not ideal, but acceptable for the moment. On the PDP that is being considered on the larger IGO issue, can you provide your best estimate as to when the GNSO might move on it? Thank you! Best regards, Rinalia On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the heads up. Your approach and rationale sound quite reasonable.
I am reminded of the work done that led to this:
*- 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.*
In my personal opinion, ICANN's senseless refusal to delink does not negate the need to continue to maintain these are two separate issues. At one level, I feel strongly enough about it that if forced the choice to protect both or neither, I would advocate to choose neither -- so convinced am I regarding the harm done by protecting the IOC, based on our previous work. But this approach sounds unlikely to gain traction ICANN-wide, so what you propose is OK with me as a second choice.
- Evan
- 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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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...)
Thank you Alan. Putting together the Red Cross and the IOC again just does not match up at the core the IOC is profit making - not driven by humanitarian concerns though supposedly uniting in it's goals. I am for separating these as unnatural twins leaving as such. Hesitant but your recommendations as is given beneath would have my vote with an annexure added on how the two institutions should really be on two different boats. My quick thoughts. TT On 19 Sep 2012, at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue. - Evan
+1 Evan. This would be consistent with one of the key messages in the R3 paper on ICANN's Future Challenges, which the ALAC will be voting on very soon. Best regards, Rinalia On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
*+1 Evan, and likewise +1 Rinalia.* *Jean-Jacques. * 2012/9/19 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
+1 Evan. This would be consistent with one of the key messages in the R3 paper on ICANN's Future Challenges, which the ALAC will be voting on very soon.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Good catch, Rinalia. +1 - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Evan. This would be consistent with one of the key messages in the R3 paper on ICANN's Future Challenges, which the ALAC will be voting on very soon.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Ah yes. We could do that and increase the heat. +1. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
In line with some of the comments by Avri and others, some other At-Large members have agreed to join an effort to create such a statement, intended for ALAC approval. The staterment is intended to: 1) Be concise (no more than a page or two) 2) Primarily target the Board, not the GNSO 3) Deal with the proposed mechanisms, including PDPs and temporary lists 4) Address the foolishness of combining the IOC and RC, as a warning about ICANN's positioning itself to make judgements about groups worthy of protection (and who isn't) 5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names. The tentative workspace for this effort is at https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg - Evan
Hi Evan, I hear what you are saying but in this respect the context demands that we make proper submissions to the IOC-RC Drafting Team because ultimately it is their recommendations that are put to the GNSO Council before going to the Board as advice and the Board then passes a resolution. A Statement to the Board can be done complementary. If we just go straight for the Board it means that we risk either crying foul (but here we are given the chance to provide input) and the GNSO will be very quick to point out that we had the opportunity to garner feedback. I am putting some thoughts to paper with the intention of sending it to APRALO to see if they wish to add anything or make comments and I will send back to you all. Hope to finish asap. @Avri, Wolf, I would be very concerned if you did not give feedback to us or raise your voice because we are mere bridges and as Rinalia and Wolf had mentioned your voice is an important one. We can't do this alone, it takes all of us together. Best Regards All, Sala On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
In line with some of the comments by Avri and others, some other At-Large members have agreed to join an effort to create such a statement, intended for ALAC approval.
The staterment is intended to: 1) Be concise (no more than a page or two) 2) Primarily target the Board, not the GNSO 3) Deal with the proposed mechanisms, including PDPs and temporary lists 4) Address the foolishness of combining the IOC and RC, as a warning about ICANN's positioning itself to make judgements about groups worthy of protection (and who isn't) 5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
The tentative workspace for this effort is at https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Dear Evan et all, I consider point 5 as the most challenging point. Isn't the GNSO looking into this a while ago with no concrete proposal? Hasn't it been discussed within ICANN since the applicants book was drafted? To propose a working and robust proposal to protect nontrademarked public interest names is IMHO nothing we can just do alone. I think it would be wise to collaborate with other AC SO. (it is all about breaking silos). Saying that I have also problems with point 2. (addressing the board directly). But I agree to the rest:) My two cent's Best Sandra (Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.) Am 20.09.2012 um 17:21 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize sponsorship revenue.
In line with some of the comments by Avri and others, some other At-Large members have agreed to join an effort to create such a statement, intended for ALAC approval.
The staterment is intended to: 1) Be concise (no more than a page or two) 2) Primarily target the Board, not the GNSO 3) Deal with the proposed mechanisms, including PDPs and temporary lists 4) Address the foolishness of combining the IOC and RC, as a warning about ICANN's positioning itself to make judgements about groups worthy of protection (and who isn't) 5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
The tentative workspace for this effort is at https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment. Hong -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
I made a careful study on the legal status of both organizations, and find that both IOC and RC are actually international Non-governmental organizations (NGOs). So, if there could be a holistic solution (DRP or else), it should cover all International Organizations (IOs), including international NGOs and IGOs. If we stick to the term IGOs, it could be no solution for IOC or RC at all. Hong On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
I made a careful study on the legal status of both organizations, and find that both IOC and RC are actually international Non-governmental organizations (NGOs). So, if there could be a holistic solution (DRP or else), it should cover all International Organizations (IOs), including international NGOs and IGOs. If we stick to the term IGOs, it could be no solution for IOC or RC at all.
This was also what the IOC-RC Drafting Team had to grapple with my comments are below:
Hong
Some of the key considerations that arose out of the Preliminary Issue Report (and imagine the ones in the Final Issue Report) include: · enable the community to give feedback on the criteria for protection and particularly whether these should include all International Organizations, or all International Organizations which includes Multinational Corporations or International Organizations that are not for profit and are protected under multiple international treaties or statutes; · evaluate the breadth and scope of protections granted under these Treaties and International law; · quantify entities that may need special protection and empirical analysis as a precursor for PDP. · explore the exceptions to the “Exclusivity” and the spectrum of exclusivity eg. Limited exclusivity noting the US example of prior use in relation to a statute codifying protection of the Red Cross emblem save for American Red Cross and how Johnson & Johnson’s trademark were using the Red Cross in 1887 and have held exclusive rights to register the mark on its commercial products for over a hundred years;
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Titi, just a clarification. My understanding is that the IOC is a non-profit NGO, albeit one with a huge cash-flow and one that charges for access to many of its assets. Alan At 19/09/2012 09:53 AM, Titi Akinsanmi wrote:
Thank you Alan.
Putting together the Red Cross and the IOC again just does not match up at the core the IOC is profit making - not driven by humanitarian concerns though supposedly uniting in it's goals.
I am for separating these as unnatural twins leaving as such.
Hesitant but your recommendations as is given beneath would have my vote with an annexure added on how the two institutions should really be on two different boats.
My quick thoughts.
TT
On 19 Sep 2012, at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Yeah, so classified. But in reality, well...... ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
Titi, just a clarification. My understanding is that the IOC is a non-profit NGO, albeit one with a huge cash-flow and one that charges for access to many of its assets.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 09:53 AM, Titi Akinsanmi wrote:
Thank you Alan.
Putting together the Red Cross and the IOC again just does not match up at the core the IOC is profit making - not driven by humanitarian concerns though supposedly uniting in it's goals.
I am for separating these as unnatural twins leaving as such.
Hesitant but your recommendations as is given beneath would have my vote with an annexure added on how the two institutions should really be on two different boats.
My quick thoughts.
TT
On 19 Sep 2012, at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Note the use if my words as profit making - not that it's not an NGO but that it's highly profitable. Make thaay extremely that initself sets it apart for me. On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:31 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Titi, just a clarification. My understanding is that the IOC is a non-profit NGO, albeit one with a huge cash-flow and one that charges for access to many of its assets.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 09:53 AM, Titi Akinsanmi wrote:
Thank you Alan.
Putting together the Red Cross and the IOC again just does not match up at the core the IOC is profit making - not driven by humanitarian concerns though supposedly uniting in it's goals.
I am for separating these as unnatural twins leaving as such.
Hesitant but your recommendations as is given beneath would have my vote with an annexure added on how the two institutions should really be on two different boats.
My quick thoughts.
TT
On 19 Sep 2012, at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Alan, I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm. This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback. Kind Regards On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Dear Alan, To clarify, I am referring to the Final Issues Report mentioned in the Preliminary Issues Report posted on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/BgQQAg Grateful if you could provide a link for this please. Thanks, Sala On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan,
I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm.
This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback.
Kind Regards
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture. No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable. I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions. I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations. If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'. Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck). Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time. Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN. We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution. avri On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
You know something, Avri has caused me to rethink this. The IOC is not and should not be equated to the Red Cross. Period. The argument that the IOC would ever return a privilege once given is weak. No they will not. Let's do it right the first time. Consider the matter in context of the larger issue; IGOs and their protection. I'm not sure what 'moratorium' means in this context but at this stage, well.....nothing is going to happen too quickly here. Let the matter go to a PDP. We must support delinking the IOC and Red Cross when the matter is considered. I withdraw my support. No. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
avri
On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
+1 very wise words Best Sandra (Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.) Am 20.09.2012 um 03:52 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
avri
On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Dear Avri, You make a very persuasive case. I am inclined to back your recommendation (i.e., recommend a PDP and advocate for splitting the issue). Thank you for "intruding" and please do it again in the future whenever you see the need to help the ALAC re-think and re-set its course. Best regards, Rinalia On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
avri
On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear all, I just want to underline Rinalia's remarks on Avri's input what I consider *substantial* as well! Please continue to "intrude" yourself, Avri. Best, Wolf Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:35
Dear Avri,
You make a very persuasive case. I am inclined to back your recommendation (i.e., recommend a PDP and advocate for splitting the issue).
Thank you for "intruding" and please do it again in the future whenever you see the need to help the ALAC re-think and re-set its course.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
avri
On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Indeed! The ALAC's business is predicated on open-ness. So to 'intrude' is to be responsive. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Avri,
You make a very persuasive case. I am inclined to back your recommendation (i.e., recommend a PDP and advocate for splitting the issue).
Thank you for "intruding" and please do it again in the future whenever you see the need to help the ALAC re-think and re-set its course.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
avri
On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.
No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped off his performance! Unconscionable.
I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for delinking....and even reversal.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Avri, Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names? Alan At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Dear All, Following our meeting yesterday, I contacted Alan to forward my submissions to the GNSO IOC RC Drafting Team in my personal capacity. I have since finalised the submissions and they are enclosed within this email for your records. I am told they are meeting tomorrow at 1600 UTC and I wish Alan all the best with his meetings. I have inserted a Disclaimer and made it clear that the views are strictly my own and does not reflect the views of the ALAC. I have also inserted an Executive Summary and made brief cosmetic changes etc. Thank you and kind regards, Sala
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
sandra hoferichter -
Titi Akinsanmi -
Wolf Ludwig