Thanks Sala and Evan. Just for the record, all bets regarding linking are off regarding the outcome of proposed PDP. I think that there could well be some distinctions among the 50,000 (or whatever the number is) IGOs. Also, the IOC protection in at least some jurisdictions seems to be the Ring symbols and not the name which may also influence outcome. But all that is rightly the question(s) for the PDP. All that is being proposed here is a prudent short-term "Do no harm" and "Don't second-guess the PDP outcome" type approach. Alan At 19/09/2012 02:02 AM, Evan Leibovitch 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>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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56