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

Thu Sep 20 03:17:14 UTC 2012

Page 10 of the Preliminary Issues Report describes the "moratorium" taken
by the Board in reference to the Singapore resolution.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> For the record, the word moratorium is no longer being used (as of
> this afternoon in any case). The wording would be to the effect that
> the names are temporarily on the reserved names list pending a final
> decision of whether they should be reserved or not as an outcome of the
> PDP.
>
> Alan
>
> At 19/09/2012 10:19 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >You know something,  Avri has caused me to rethink this.
> >
> >The IOC is not and should not be equated to the Red Cross. Period.
> >
> >The argument that the IOC would ever return a privilege once given is
> weak.
> >No they will not.
> >
> >Let's do it right the first time.  Consider the matter in context of the
> >larger issue; IGOs and their protection.
> >
> >I'm not sure what 'moratorium' means in this context but at this stage,
> >well.....nothing is going to happen too quickly here.
> >
> >Let the matter go to a PDP.  We must support delinking the IOC and Red
> >Cross when the matter is considered.
> >
> >I withdraw my support.  No.
> >
> >- Carlton
> >
> >==============================
> >Carlton A Samuels
> >Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >=============================
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions.
> > >
> > > I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty,
> > > but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations.
> > >
> > > If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will
> > > never be able to take it away from the them.  You will be supporting
> > > granting this as IOC base 'rights'.
> > >
> > > Please, do not hold your noses.  Please smell the skunk for what it is
> and
> > > recommend against it.  Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the
> issue.
> > >  Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever
> they
> > > call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck).
> > >
> > > Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
> > >
> > > Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily
> now
> > > will become the new base on which future give aways will be built.
>  That is
> > > the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN.
> > >
> > > We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because
> there
> > > is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > > On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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)
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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)
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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)
>

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

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