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

Sun Sep 23 23:01:33 UTC 2012

Dear Alan,

Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for feedback. I
have yet to complete them as you can see but they show the reasons why I
suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I argue that the exception
 that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal should be further narrowed.

Kind Regards,
Sala
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> > wrote:
>
>>  If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting
>> protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted.
>> There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently
>> Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific
>> pointer for this one is
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun12-en.htm.
>>
> I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final Issues
> Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
>
>>
>> Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO
>> activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by
>> ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All
>> comments are accessible through the above pointer.
>>
>> If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and
>> IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a
>> participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and
>> anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
>>
>
>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>> At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my submissions
>> later. Do you have the  link for the Issues Report that was developed
>> following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request for feedback from the
>> ALAC part of the development of the Issues Report? I am guessing it is the
>> latter but need you to confirm.
>>
>> This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>

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

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 618160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20120924/06d2742f/DraftResponsetoALACGNSOLiaisonIOCRCRC24.9.12.pdf>