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

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
Thu Sep 20 16:53:07 UTC 2012


Dear all,

I just want to underline Rinalia's remarks on Avri's input what I consider *substantial* as well! Please continue to "intrude" yourself, Avri.

Best,
Wolf


Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:35
>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)
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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)
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig



More information about the ALAC mailing list