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

Thu Sep 20 01:31:49 UTC 2012

My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different
animals altogether.  The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the
funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture.

No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any
other single athlete.  But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to
scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers reaped
off his performance! Unconscionable.

I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined.  On condition
that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for
delinking....and even reversal.

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 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)
>