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

Thu Sep 20 00:06:14 UTC 2012

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting
> protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted.
> There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently
> Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific
> pointer for this one is
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun12-en.htm.
>
I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues
Report which is mentioned within the PIR.

>
> Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO
> activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by
> ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All
> comments are accessible through the above pointer.
>
> If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and
> IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a
> participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and
> anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
>

>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my submissions
> later. Do you have the  link for the Issues Report that was developed
> following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request for feedback from the
> ALAC part of the development of the Issues Report? I am guessing it is the
> latter but need you to confirm.
>
> This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, 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)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851