Thanks Alan. Firstly this is still a draft and I will finalise prior to sending my final submissions to you. My comments are inline: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:

Sala, I do not have the time to reply in detail to your long communique, but a few points may be appropriate:

- It is not the GNSO but the IOC/RC Drafting Team that has issued a consensus call.

Yes, it is the GNSO IOC/RC Drafting Team who are polishing their recommendations to the GNSO Council which may then possibly go before the Board.

- Regarding whether other IGOs (note IOC is not actaully an IGO, but close) will later qualify for additional protections.

This is one of the considerations that ICANN staff raised within the Preliminary Issue Report about making clear which International Organisations can benefit, hence the need for a PDP. This is why it is in the global communities interest to have access to the Final Issue Report prior to this consensus call.

I will not try to guess at what the GAC may do at some later date, but so far they have not put other groups in the same pot, despite some of their members calling for such action.

We do not have to guess what the GAC will do as they have made their position pretty clear in light of what they think the criteria is which is essential protection for treaties based organisation that are also protected by statutes. This clearly makes it a whole lot more than 2.

I call your attention to the briefing paper that the Board used (among other things) to make its original decision.

I had read them Alan prior to writing the first draft submissions. One of the things that came up during the Preliminary Issue Report was deciding which of the three categorisations for International Organisations which included things like whether they should include Multinational Corporations (MNCs) etc etc

Specifically, that there were not other organizations that seemed to qualify under both international treaty AND national laws. The paper which was redacted from the Board briefing materials was released a while ago. See

www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.pdf .

My comments are same as above.

- Although the issue of IGOs is not new, even if the GNSO had acted on the 2007 proposal to create a new (or modify an existing) dispute resolution mechanism, we would likely still be in the same boat today with regard to protecting names at the 2nd (or 1st) level. The dispute mechanism, if it existed, would allow IGOs to fight registrations that potentially conflicted (such as typo-squatting or used the name in conjunction with other words). So that would have protected the names after the fact as the UDRP does for trademarks.ANd even if we now give protection against registering exact strings of IGO names, there would still be a need for an IGO-friendly dispute resolution mechanism.

This was raised by the 2007 Issue Report and the fact that the GNSO council failed to gather the requisite number of votes is the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. Having said that, there is room to turn this around and make it into what this was originally about which is "Internet Governance" with reasonable cause, I have highlighted certain obstacles and potentially pitfalls that ICANN may have to be wary of in making the decision that the GNSO IOC/RC should be reminded to take note of.

Alan

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851