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

Thu Sep 20 01:35:44 UTC 2012

Yeah, so classified.  But in reality, well......

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

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>