[ALAC] Fwd: ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue

[Alan Greenberg]

fyi

>To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue
>
>As approved a few minutes ago.
>
>
>ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN 
>THE GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
>
>The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN 
>Board, its staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain 
>names related to the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to 
>the poor precedents these activities set forward both on substance 
>and on process:
>
>On substance, we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red 
>Cross and the International Olympic Committee protections not 
>available to other rights holders. Substantial objection procedures 
>were put in place regarding the gTLD program, well capable of 
>addressing all concerns about confusion and misuse. ICANN's 
>Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which has raised the concerns 
>about these names, indeed has its own hard-won objection mechanisms in place.
>
>Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe 
>specifically that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related 
>names is against the global public interest. We note that many 
>legitimate uses of the word "olympic" and its derivatives are used 
>for airlines, cameras, restaurants, paint, and numerous businesses 
>around the world with no connection to the Olympic athletic movement 
>or the IOC. These businesses are not currently seen to be confusing 
>with the olympic movement, and we believe that needless restriction 
>on these names -- beyond what already exists -- is publicly harmful.
>
>On process, it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a 
>hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden 
>as a result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept 
>that the GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was 
>performing its role according to its members' wishes. However, the 
>ICANN Board's imposition of these wishes upon the community without 
>prior consultation demonstrates numerous flaws and poor precedents:
>    * It is our understanding that the scope given the GNSO Drafting 
> Team, in debating this matter, precluded it from rejecting outright 
> the proposed changes because the Board had already forced the 
> matter. The Drafting Team was left in a position of refining -- and 
> indeed legitimizing -- a Board directive that many community 
> members thought to be objectionable outright;
>    * The overriding of broad consensus-based policy based on a 
> bilateral negotiation calls into question ICANN's publicly 
> expressed commitment to maintaining (and indeed strengthening) its 
> "multi-stakeholder model". How can ICANN's multi-stakeholder model 
> claims be trusted when the community consensus can be so easily 
> overridden due to perceived political expediency?
>    * The late date of this activity, changing the Applicant 
> Guidebook so long after its "final" version was published, reduces 
> public confidence and destabilizes the application process
>    * Why is this only about generic names? That is, why would 
> "co.redcross" be subject to pre-restriction but "redcross.co" not? 
> The uneven and unequal application of such a demand is the source 
> of both instability and confusion. The debate on such policy should 
> not be limited to the GNSO, since it is an issue affecting all domain names.
>
>We note many of our concerns about this process have been expressed 
>in Kurt Pritz's March 2 letter to the GNSO Drafting Team. We 
>believe, though, that rather than simply requesting further details 
>and refinement, staff's concerns call into question the value of the 
>entire initiative.
>
>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. This matter should be reviewed with the purpose of giving 
>the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interest related to 
>making changes to previously-approved multi-stakeholder 
>consensus.  ALAC further advises the ICANN Board 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, but has the effect of creating new potential 
>sources of public confusion and instability.