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

Thu Sep 20 14:35:46 UTC 2012

Dear Avri,

You make a very persuasive case.  I am inclined to back your recommendation
(i.e., recommend a PDP and advocate for splitting the issue).

Thank you for "intruding" and please do it again in the future whenever you
see the need to help the ALAC re-think and re-set its course.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, 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)
>