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

Wed Sep 19 22:31:14 UTC 2012

Titi, just a clarification. My understanding is that the IOC is a 
non-profit NGO, albeit one with a huge cash-flow and one that charges 
for access to many of its assets.

Alan

At 19/09/2012 09:53 AM, Titi Akinsanmi wrote:
>Thank you Alan.
>
>Putting together the Red Cross and the IOC again just does not match 
>up at the core the IOC is profit making - not driven by humanitarian 
>concerns though supposedly uniting in it's goals.
>
>I am for separating these as unnatural twins leaving as such.
>
>Hesitant but your recommendations as is given beneath would have my 
>vote with an annexure added on how the two institutions should 
>really be on two different boats.
>
>My quick thoughts.
>
>TT
>
>On 19 Sep 2012, at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)