The final report has been drafted and can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf. There were significant changes from the earlier draft, but mostly in format and clarity. As a result, several of the comments that we made on the draft version are no longer applicable. I am attaching a copy of the revised statement that I propose to submit for inclusion in the report. For ease of access for those travelling, I am also appending the text to this e-mail. There were NO substantive changes made to this statement from the version approved by the ALAC (as a comment on the draft report). Only those parts no longer applicable were deleted. Those included: - removal of the list of specific ALAC positions, since they are now included in the body of the report; - removal of the reference to some items being classed as having strong divergence where there was really a consensus NOT to do them (the report now says that). To be considered by the GNSO in its meeting next Wednesday, the minority statement needs to be submitted by Friday. Unless I hear any concern with this being done, I will submit it by that deadline. If there is a problem meeting the deadline, we can still submit it before it goes to the Board, but the GNSO will not have the benefit of having it in the version they consider (presuming a decision is taken next week and it is not deferred). Alan ========================== ALAC Minority Statement on the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP The ALAC has made a number of statements on the protection of IGO and INGO names, and has participated actively in all GNSO activities related to this topic. Our views on specific outcomes of this PDP are reflected in the Final Report. Given the wide range of views expressed in this report, and noting that nothing presented has received the unanimous support of the PDP Working Group, the ALAC would like to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the Recommendations as well as identify the principles that have guided its positions. The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of Recommendations some reflecting a WG Consensus (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) some with an even weaker level of support. Not a single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full Consensus), a level of support that is more typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many of the recommendations originally considered by the WG and strongly supported by some, the overall participant views were Divergent. If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies. The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting blocking-level protections may prohibit other reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not satisfied that the exception procedure options outlined in the report could meet the targets that the ALAC believes are mandatory. This being the case, it may be important to consider the principles that guided the ALAC in our participation in the activities that led to this report, and that the ALAC believes should guide ICANN in considering any special protections. 1. ICANN should grant special protection to organizations that further the public interest and in particular, those with a strong track record of humanitarian activities. However, such protections should only be granted where there is a history or reasonable expectation that the lack of protections would lead to the misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance. 2. Such protections, when granted, should not unreasonably impinge on the ability of others with a valid right to use the protected string from registering such names for uses which do not negatively impact the protected organization nor use the protected name with the intent to deceive users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote 1] 3. The procedures used to grant the protection exceptions identified in number 2 must be both inexpensive and fast. 4. No top level protections are necessary. Existing or new objection processes are sufficient. Footnote 1: Although not a gTLD registration, cern.ca is a good example. The Centre d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec has no connection or even a vague relationship with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a prime example of a new registration that might not be allowed under the proposed rules even though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a logical registration for Olympic Paints.