All, I am not sure I can post to this list, but if I can, I just want to note for the record that this statement by Evan is completely contrary to the position taken by the ALAC member on the Drafting Team. Perhaps you should all coordinate to get the full story here because there are a number of assumptions built into this statement that may not be true or were already addressed by the GAC and others who are experts in this area. I am not trying to discourage you from making a statement, but just trying to make sure the statement is fact-based. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 12:40 PM To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross I like! On Mar 4, 2012 12:40 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

Hello all,

As discussed on the Monday ALAC call, I have done a first draft of a statement on the recent Board and GNSO activity regarding reserved names for the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee.

The draft of this statement is located at

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+...

Please read and comment. I will attempt to incorporate any received comments before this statement is presented to ALAC for consideration as advice to be approved during the Costa Rica meeting.

Thanks!

Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Evan, This is being posted in my personal capacity and not as the Chair of the Drafting Team. I too am disappointed in the manner and process in which the original board resolution came into play. I am more so disappointed in the way in which the Board resolution was implemented in the Guidebook at the top-level. The fact is that there was no form of public comment on the staff implementation and that implementation left so many loopholes in the application process, that the protections which are currently there are virtually meaningless. It made no sense to us to ban the word "Olympics", but allow "Olympiks" for example In addition, it made no sense to us that unlike any of the other reserved names, these names would NOT go through a string similarity review. Where was that decision made? Who made that decision? Why was there no public comment period on that decision? Without getting into what was or wasn't said, the statement you have drafted - at least on the substance - is more of an expression of opinion as to whether the Olympic and/or red cross names should be protected. In fact, the statement explicitly states that such protections are "publicly harmful." If you could please update your statement to include the legal, factual or other basis for that claim, that would greatly assist the drafting team in its deliberations. The IOC, IRC and GAC have provided ample evidence of treaties and national law, each of which very strongly protect the Olympic and Red Cross marks. In addition, except for the identical matches, the Drafting Team is actually providing a mechanism for others that have a legitimate use of a similar mark to be able to get that string at the top level (eg., .olympus, .olympicair, .olympicpaint, etc.). It is by no means a perfect solution, but the Governments have brought to us a proposal and we evaluated it. You have cited to the Multi-stakeholder process in your statement, but the governments are also part of the multi-stakeholder model as well and due consideration and respect must be given to their consensus statements/proposals if we are to succeed in the private-public partnership. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 1:34 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross Hi Jeff, I am not sure I can post to this list, but if I can, I just want to note

for the record that this statement by Evan is completely contrary to the position taken by the ALAC member on the Drafting Team.

Having spoken to Alan before writing this, I don't believe that to be the case. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Good evening. This issue has been on the table for several years. 1. This letter dates, I think, from 2004: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pri... I recall that this is not the only occasion on which the problem has been drawn to ICANN's attention. 2. However, I see no reason to privilege IOC and RC as against the IGOs many of which have equally good arguments for protection. 3. If it is in the "public interest" for trademark owners to be able to protect the exclusivity of their names, then it is equally - if not more so - in the public interest for the IGOs to be identifiable, with at little confusion as possible. 4. I have no idea how this issue has meanwhile escaped the attention of the GNSO and the multistakeholder process of which ALAC is a party. Regards CW On 04 Mar 2012, at 19:50, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Thanks for the comments, Avri.

I've tried to incorporate your comments into the statement.

- Evan

On 4 March 2012 13:28, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

On 4 Mar 2012, at 11:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

The draft of this statement is located at

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+...

I support the statement, but have some difficulty with the wording of the last paragraph.

...

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest, and to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end- user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

If I understand the statement correctly, my difficulty concerns two implications that on their surface appear contractory:

- A Board reconsideration, if successful, could result in changing the AGB because they would have to drop the prohibition against anyone, including the IOC or RC, from applying for one of the listed IOC/RC names.

- yet because it would be wrong to change an ongoing process at this late date, ALAC is asking that the AGB remain as it is

While I support this combined goal I think that it needs to be explained better.

So, assuming I understand the recommendation being proposed in the draft, I offer some possible changes to this paragraph for consideration.

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its actions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest. ALAC advises that actions of the Board in this regard be reviewed with the purpose of giving the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interests involved in making such changes to implementations that were based on approved multistakeholder consensus policy. ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard. Although it would have been better had the ICANN Board not decided as it did, changes to an ongoing process at the end of that process would be inherently unfair and detrimental. As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

thanks

avri

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Greeting, I would agree with ALAC's opinion on Red Cross and International Olymic Commitee "we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red Cross and the Olympic movement protections not available to other rights holders", provided ICANN itself did not made the first reserved list of its 34 names (of which only two are technical). It is very complicated and costly to protect any name in gTLD space. While the trademark owners may use related laws to protect their names, the issue is by order of magnitude more complicated for organizations. I would appreciate to see ICANN defending the name of "IANA". It's not an international treaty organization, just a name under .org, shared acronym. The same for applies for "IETF", "INTERNIC", etc. You cannot prevent anybody from the street to apply for those names. The similar is true for many organizations. Understand me well - I have a great respect for all that names as for the history in the making in the Internet, and do not want to harm them. Why there is no means to make reserved list for organizations? Making defensive registrations is costly ($US 185,000 & more), and simply an overkill to protect an organization name. Why ICANN is putting itself above the other rights holders? Where is “the public interest” in creating instability for many organizations? Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve == Top-Level Reserved Names List AFRINIC ALAC APNIC ARIN ASO CCNSO EXAMPLE* GAC GNSO GTLD-SERVERS IAB IANA IANA-SERVERS ICANN IESG IETF INTERNIC INVALID IRTF ISTF LACNIC LOCAL LOCALHOST NIC NRO RFC-EDITOR RIPE ROOT-SERVERS RSSAC SSAC TEST* TLD WHOIS WWW Le 04/03/2012 19:50, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :

Thanks for the comments, Avri.

I've tried to incorporate your comments into the statement.

- Evan

On 4 March 2012 13:28, Avri Doria<avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

On 4 Mar 2012, at 11:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

The draft of this statement is located at

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+...

I support the statement, but have some difficulty with the wording of the last paragraph.

...

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest, and to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

If I understand the statement correctly, my difficulty concerns two implications that on their surface appear contractory:

- A Board reconsideration, if successful, could result in changing the AGB because they would have to drop the prohibition against anyone, including the IOC or RC, from applying for one of the listed IOC/RC names.

- yet because it would be wrong to change an ongoing process at this late date, ALAC is asking that the AGB remain as it is

While I support this combined goal I think that it needs to be explained better.

So, assuming I understand the recommendation being proposed in the draft, I offer some possible changes to this paragraph for consideration.

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its actions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest. ALAC advises that actions of the Board in this regard be reviewed with the purpose of giving the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interests involved in making such changes to implementations that were based on approved multistakeholder consensus policy. ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard. Although it would have been better had the ICANN Board not decided as it did, changes to an ongoing process at the end of that process would be inherently unfair and detrimental. As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

thanks

avri

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi Elizabeth, The proposed statement is specifically to deal with the after-the-fact changing of the Applicant Guidebook regarding two specific organizations. The more general question of "why are all names in the reserved list there?" is well beyond its scope and long past useful debate. - Evan On 4 March 2012 15:14, Elisabeth Porteneuve < elisabeth.porteneuve@latmos.ipsl.fr> wrote:

Greeting,

I would agree with ALAC's opinion on Red Cross and International Olymic Commitee "we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red Cross and the Olympic movement protections not available to other rights holders", provided ICANN itself did not made the first reserved list of its 34 names (of which only two are technical).

It is very complicated and costly to protect any name in gTLD space. While the trademark owners may use related laws to protect their names, the issue is by order of magnitude more complicated for organizations.

I would appreciate to see ICANN defending the name of "IANA". It's not an international treaty organization, just a name under .org, shared acronym. The same for applies for "IETF", "INTERNIC", etc. You cannot prevent anybody from the street to apply for those names. The similar is true for many organizations.

Understand me well - I have a great respect for all that names as for the history in the making in the Internet, and do not want to harm them. Why there is no means to make reserved list for organizations? Making defensive registrations is costly ($US 185,000 & more), and simply an overkill to protect an organization name.

Why ICANN is putting itself above the other rights holders?****

Where is “the public interest” in creating instability for many organizations?** **

** Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve **

**== Top-Level Reserved Names List AFRINIC ALAC APNIC ARIN ASO CCNSO EXAMPLE* GAC GNSO GTLD-SERVERS IAB IANA IANA-SERVERS ICANN IESG IETF INTERNIC INVALID IRTF ISTF LACNIC LOCAL LOCALHOST NIC NRO RFC-EDITOR RIPE ROOT-SERVERS RSSAC SSAC TEST* TLD WHOIS WWW

**

Le 04/03/2012 19:50, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :

Thanks for the comments, Avri.

I've tried to incorporate your comments into the statement.

- Evan

On 4 March 2012 13:28, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 4 Mar 2012, at 11:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

The draft of this statement is located at

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+...

I support the statement, but have some difficulty with the wording of the last paragraph.

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the

ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest, and to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

If I understand the statement correctly, my difficulty concerns two implications that on their surface appear contractory:

- A Board reconsideration, if successful, could result in changing the AGB because they would have to drop the prohibition against anyone, including the IOC or RC, from applying for one of the listed IOC/RC names.

- yet because it would be wrong to change an ongoing process at this late date, ALAC is asking that the AGB remain as it is

While I support this combined goal I think that it needs to be explained better.

So, assuming I understand the recommendation being proposed in the draft, I offer some possible changes to this paragraph for consideration.

In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its actions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest. ALAC advises that actions of the Board in this regard be reviewed with the purpose of giving the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interests involved in making such changes to implementations that were based on approved multistakeholder consensus policy. ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard. Although it would have been better had the ICANN Board not decided as it did, changes to an ongoing process at the end of that process would be inherently unfair and detrimental. As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

thanks

avri

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi, I went through the reserved names's PDF to recall myself the issue, however at that time the case of protection of organizations other that ICANN was not even addressed. Today it's screaming that ICANN places itself above the other rights holders, while at the same time is creating instability for many organizations, and for the whole world. With its private reserved list of names ICANN is not credible. The legislative body cannot set rules and make exception for itself -- not in a decent place. ICANN is immoral to make an exception of itself from its own rules. I have no idea how to address that issue, but it cannot simply be forgotten. Elisabeth Porteneuve cf. http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icannimplementation- doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07.pdf Le 04/03/2012 23:51, Avri Doria a écrit :

Hi,

I agree with the reply,

However, if the issue of protected names and 'Strings Ineligible for Delegation' (the category created by BoardStaff for this round) is ever opened up to discussion and to policy process at a later time, then I beleive the special status given any name other than "example", should be reviewed as part of that exercise. For this round, the issue of reserved names was discussed as part of the New gTLD PDP and in my opinion any changes would require another PDP.

avri

On 4 Mar 2012, at 17:28, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Hi Elizabeth,

The proposed statement is specifically to deal with the after-the-fact changing of the Applicant Guidebook regarding two specific organizations. The more general question of "why are all names in the reserved list there?" is well beyond its scope and long past useful debate.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

On 04/03/2012 23:51, Avri Doria wrote :

However, if the issue of protected names and 'Strings Ineligible for Delegation' (the category created by BoardStaff for this round) is ever opened up to discussion and to policy process at a later time, then I beleive the special status given any name other than "example", should be reviewed as part of that exercise. For this round, the issue of reserved names was discussed as part of the New gTLD PDP and in my opinion any changes would require another PDP.

There are times at ICANN where I feel I am living a continuous "ground-hog day". A considerable amount of time and hard work has been devoted to discussing the concept of a Global Protected Marks List (GPML). By "considerable", I mean tens of thousands of man-hours, through the IRT, but also the STI-WG, plus countless formal and informal meetings. Bottom line: it would be extremely unwise to extend TM rights to entities beyond the rights they have been granted by WIPO. ICANN should *not* be in the business of choosing what's protected and what's not. Hence my own personal reservations about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of having the section "Strings Ineligible for Delegation", because it re-opens a Pandora's box which I was glad to see behind us. Kind regards, Olivier

On 4 Mar 2012, at 20:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Moreover, unlike trademark violation, improper use of the symbols and strings are protected in most countries by criminal code statute, so improper use is actually a criminal offence.

Well that sounds like a good incentive to keep people from applying for those strings covered by law at the top level or at the second level. In any case, for this round the Board already gave these strings the ultimate protection. What greater protection at the top level could IOC or RC ask? For whose benefit are the proposals being made by the GNSO DT? avri

Olivier + 1 -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Enviada em: domingo, 4 de março de 2012 20:57 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross On 04/03/2012 23:51, Avri Doria wrote :

However, if the issue of protected names and 'Strings Ineligible for Delegation' (the category created by BoardStaff for this round) is ever opened up to discussion and to policy process at a later time, then I beleive the special status given any name other than "example", should be reviewed as part of that exercise. For this round, the issue of reserved names was discussed as part of the New gTLD PDP and in my opinion any changes would require another PDP.

There are times at ICANN where I feel I am living a continuous "ground-hog day". A considerable amount of time and hard work has been devoted to discussing the concept of a Global Protected Marks List (GPML). By "considerable", I mean tens of thousands of man-hours, through the IRT, but also the STI-WG, plus countless formal and informal meetings. Bottom line: it would be extremely unwise to extend TM rights to entities beyond the rights they have been granted by WIPO. ICANN should *not* be in the business of choosing what's protected and what's not. Hence my own personal reservations about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of having the section "Strings Ineligible for Delegation", because it re-opens a Pandora's box which I was glad to see behind us. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org