[ALAC] RCRC-IOC-IGO-INGO Consensus Call

[Carlton Samuels]

Hi Alan:
Please see my comments.  Where I follow your position I note 'CAS:
Support'.  And in cases where I think additional requirements must be
considered to support your position, I have asked the question.

Best,
-Carlton


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


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> I should have mentioned this on the ALAC call today, but forgot.
>
> The IGO-INGO PDP WG has issued a consensus call on a number of types of
> support for protection of IGO-INGO names and acronyms.
>
> I am attaching my position here, and would welcome input on to what extent
> others support these views.
>
> By way of explanation, I answered a number of them as "Can live with".
> This tends to have one of two meanings:
> - I think it is stupid, but not harmful. An Example is allowing the future
> application for TLDs such as .**unitednationsinternationalchil**drensemergencyfund
> or .worldhealthorganization.
> - I think that there is simply no need. An example is the blocking of
> .redcross, when we could simply have a free objectiopn process to ensure
> that such a TLD is only allowed by the IGO-INGO.
>
> I presume it will be treated as "support" in the final analysis.
>
> I supported all use of the TMCH. This is a very weak form of protection
> and do not think it will cause any real harm. I did not support Permanent
> claims notices unless TMs are also granted this (no chance!).
>
> I am prepared to present these as my personal positions, but would be glad
> to include some or all ALAC members if support is provided to me. There is
> not sufficient time to do a formal vote. You can agree or disagree with
> some or all of my positions. And given a good rationale, I am pleased to
> change any of them (they were answered VERY quickly!)
>
> If you have any questions, each item has an identifier of the form A-1
> (for the first item) and F-7 for the last).
>
> As an aside, this set of protections, even if all approved, is not likely
> to satisfy the GAC. Even the Board has suggested that SOME IGO acronyms may
> be worthy of protection. It does go further than the GAC proposals in that
> it does provide some level of support for INGOs such as OXFAM or MSF.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments from Carlton.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 23556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20130828/7055e21b/IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-agwithcommentsfromCarlton.docx>