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

Thu Sep 20 04:59:07 UTC 2012

Note the use if my words as profit making - not that it's not an NGO but that it's highly profitable. Make thaay extremely that initself sets it apart for me. 

On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:31 AM, 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)
> 