Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun.... Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer. If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well. Alan At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm.
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>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)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun....
I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer.
If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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
Dear Alan, Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I argue that the exception that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal should be further narrowed. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun....
I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer.
If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Dear Alan, I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is the correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft Submissions but enough to see th*e rationale *of where I basing my arguments. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I argue that the exception that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal should be further narrowed.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun....
I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer.
If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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
-- 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
Hi Sala: Really good piece of advocacy work here, closely reasoned and approached like a brief from an attorney on the clock. :-) - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is the correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft Submissions but enough to see th*e rationale *of where I basing my arguments.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I argue that the exception that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal should be further narrowed.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under
Recently
Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun... .
I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is
required by
ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer.
If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
Alan
At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro