[ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Dear Alan,

I support your recommendation and appreciate the rationalization that
accompanied the recommendation.

I agree with both Sala and Evan that the "linking" of the IOC and the RC is
not ideal, but acceptable for the moment.

On the PDP that is being considered on the larger IGO issue, can you
provide your best estimate as to when the GNSO might move on it?

Thank you!

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> Thanks for the heads up. Your approach and rationale sound quite
> reasonable.
>
> I am reminded of the work done that led to this:
>
> *- 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.*
> >
>
> In my personal opinion, ICANN's senseless refusal to delink does not negate
> the need to continue to maintain these are two separate issues. At one
> level, I feel strongly enough about it that if forced the choice to protect
> both or neither, I would advocate to choose neither -- so convinced am I
> regarding the harm done by protecting the IOC, based on our previous work.
> But this approach sounds unlikely to gain traction ICANN-wide, so what you
> propose is OK with me as a second choice.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > - 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>