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

Sun Sep 23 23:13:28 UTC 2012

Dear Alan,

I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is the
correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft Submissions
but enough to see th*e rationale *of where I basing my arguments.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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: 609247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20120924/1d9efc07/DraftResponsetoALACGNSOLiaisonIOCRCRC24.9.12.pdf>