[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto

[Ron Sherwood]

Alan:

My comment was to show the conflict of reason within the GAC Communiqué...
not to suggest that there should not be a PDP.

I am strongly in favor of a PDP that covers various classes of IGOs and
NGOs. I think it should be comprehensive to the extent that it recognises
the different types of organization (non-profit, for profit, private /
public cooperative, sponsored, private foundations, etc.)

I am against special protective treatment for IOC/RCRC...  as opposed to
(for example:) an international organization to combat human trafficking,
or Doctors without Borders, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The PDP should define the rules by which such names and acronyms are
registered and protected. IOC and RCRC would be covered by such a PDP, even
though they may be in difference classes (IOC funded by commercial
sponsors, RCRC funded by public/private donations).

I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph.

Best regards, Ron

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  Ron, I tend to agree with your point, although it could be argued that
> they initially raised the point because clearly ICANN had not acted on what
> they believe to be clear instructions in the form of "international
> instruments and national laws". So their original request was a "wake-up"
> call and nothing else is reguired.
>
> There is another aspect that I raised on the GNSO Council list (slightly
> revised to make it understandable out of the context of the thread there).
>
> The GAC position is that the names cannot be used.
>
> As Jeff Neuman has repeatedly said, the USE of these names may be
> forbidden but there is no requirement that registries not register them.
> There is ample precedent that registries are not held responsible for what
> people do with the names they register. Certain countries forbid the use of
> certain words, but that does not automatically put them on a reserved names
> list. If we expect all registries to deny registrations of these names,
> they must be explicitly listed in the contracts.
>
> Historically the reserved names list has been changed without the benefit
> of a PDP - compare:
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/appendix-06-01mar06-en.htmand
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/registry-agmt-appk-com-16apr01-en.htm. I am not sure if these changes were all the result of Board action, or
> simply staff action. In any case, we need to NOT say that a PDP is required
> for any change of that list. History says otherwise. And in my mind, there
> is no reason to believe that this is still not the case.
>
> However, given the likelihood (already experienced) of others saying "me
> too", a formal PDP is warranted. The fact that the GAC is willing to create
> a specific list (something I suggested a while ago and was told the GAC
> would *never* agree to do such operational work) makes it implementable if
> the PDP should decide that reservation is warranted.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 22/10/2012 01:18 PM, Ron Sherwood wrote:
>
> Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
>
> It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué
> from Toronto.
>
> *"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC
> names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws
> should be sufficient."
> *
>       *If:*      "the international instruments and national laws should
> be sufficient."...
> *Then:*      Why the specific request for protection of these two
> entities in the first place?
>
> Best regards, Ron
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
>
> It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with
> those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing
> for acronyms.
>
> Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on
> the extended list for protection.
>
> The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not
> enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of
> the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to
> ferret out those facts.
>
> - Carlton
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto <http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and<http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>attached for your convenience.
> >
> > Several things of particular note:
> >
> > - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community
> TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into
> their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
> >
> > - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected
> prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be
> given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have
> committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be
> protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
> >
> > - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC
> names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws
> should be sufficient.
> >
> > Alan
>
>