Npoc-discuss

Download

npoc-discuss@icann.org

November 2017

12 participants
11 discussions

Fwd: [council] Statement on Red Cross names - methodology and implementation - from Mason Cole
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez Nov. 1, 2017

Nov. 1, 2017

Regards Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ Apartado 1571-1000 San José COSTA RICA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Nov 1, 2017 3:43 PM Subject: [council] Statement on Red Cross names - methodology and implementation - from Mason Cole To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Dear Councilors, Please find below the full text of Mason’s statement that he read at the Open Mic earlier in this meeting. Thanks and cheers, Mary *From: *Mason Cole <mason(a)donuts.email> *Date: *Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 15:18 *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Statement As a member of the IGO/INGO working group, I’d like to raise two concerns. The first regards the methodology around development of the list of Red Cross names that are to be reserved. The proposal is that “exact match” names of the organizations be reserved, as well as what are known as “common names.” For example — the American Red Cross Society as an exact name, and the American Red Cross or The Red Cross as common names. And as you know, each name is to be reserved in multiple configurations of language and IDN. There is a concern that there will be claims to what are termed common names far beyond what was initially speculated. There’s no criteria or standard for identifying a common name, so one presumably relies on the word of each provider. However, that opens the door to potentially exponential multiplication of the name list that may not be warranted in all cases. Or it could lead an organization to claim that an acronym constitutes a common name. The GNSO obviously supports the effort around formal names, as they’re unquestionable identifiers, but there should be concern about opening the process to numerous and potentially less unquestionably linked common names or acronyms. The second concern is the methodology for adding the names of new societies to the reserved list. The current proposal is that once a Red Cross organization is chartered, the GAC can make a request directly to ICANN staff for inclusion of that name on the list. Staff presumably would then notify GDD, who would instruct contracted parties to accommodate the new names. This is alarming on several fronts. 1) It impacts our contracts. 2) It puts the GAC in a position to instruct staff directly with regard to policy, with no GNSO involvement. 3) There’s little incentive for the GAC to withhold more from its wish list in such a scenario. It would be much more preferable for the GNSO to be part of the process on policy that eventually impacts our contracts. I believe the GAC, in its communique, reaffirm its Durban advice that Red Cross and IGO acronyms should be reserved permanently. So I urge the council to carefully consider these matters in the context of the Red Cross and IGO names. [image: onuts Inc.][donuts.domains] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__donuts.domains&d=DwMFaQ…> *Mason Cole* VP Industry Relations & Policy, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ 15800 SW Boones Ferry Rd., Suite A10 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 USA + 1 (503) 407-2555 [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_donut…> [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_DonutsInc&…> [linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

2 1