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

Mon Sep 24 06:05:51 UTC 2012

Hi Sala:
Really good piece of advocacy work here, closely reasoned and approached
like a brief from an attorney on the clock.  :-)

- Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>