[ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Sep 19 05:28:45 UTC 2012
I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully
brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on.
The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options
for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus
Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be
discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th,
and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report
back to the DT at its meeting the following day.
I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to
attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting.
Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line
with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on
September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft
proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution
can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm.
The proposal has two parts and is as follows.
>1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My
>personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue
>for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP
>is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a
>subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council
>will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite
>likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete
>prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this
>proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed.
>
>2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth
>by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends
>the following:
>
>2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact
>matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC
>recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the
>first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO
>names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This
>would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and
>would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing
>this approach as a way of avoiding the issue.
>
>2.b. Communicate to the GAC:
>
>2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as
>possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international
>organizations.
>
>2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on
>pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and
>that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise.
>
>2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as
>possible on this position.
>
>2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note
>that the work that has already been done on this issue should
>facilitate the process.
I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have
qualified it above.
The rationale is as follows:
- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as
protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be
done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up
before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation
of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the
UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT
of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work
on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue
would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not
definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no
doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time.
- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not
protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if
ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be
protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call
back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly
not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been
impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do
significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names
are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this
protection, the names can easily be released at that time.
- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the
case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly
linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future
PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to
both organizations.
- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given
that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of
languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter
(https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1). And of
course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection
that they would prefer.
Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if
the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid
position that no additional protections should be granted, it is
likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort
anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit.
More information about the ALAC
mailing list