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

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Carlton, my comments to yours follow:

Variants for RCRC names - they are already included in the list the 
GAC supplied and already in the Guidebook.

A-5/6 5 is for the full name, 6 for acronym. The 189 country names 
were never mentioned until Durbin, and then only for the "formal 
name" - they later added the normal names (ie Canadian Red Cross 
Society vs Canadian Red Cross). The group generally lost patience and 
said if they were not paying attention to what was protected in the 
AG, then tough. So the token being tossed is the weak protection in 
the TMCH. It is pretty much assumed that the Scope 1 names will have 
stronger protection.

C-6: The TMCH is now obliged to honour variants if the registry does. 
That being said, it is unclear how many IGOs will put forward the 
name in Chineses (current provision in the recommendation is only for 
2 languages).

D-6: not sure whether the concept of acronyms applies in pictogram languages!

F-1: If adopted, this would place IGO acronyms such as WHO and ISO as 
ineligible for TLDs.

F-2: I supported this because it is far preferable to simply blocking 
these names at the top level which is the current Board default. A 
fee waiver presumes there is NO blocking, something that we have 
strongly supported. A means test is not likely going to fly.

F-5: A means test to avoid a charge in the hundreds of dollars? 
Regardless, I don't know how you apply a means test to organizations, 
such as Unicef or the Red Cross which have huge budgets. If a few who 
don't deserve it squeak through, so be it.

Alan

At 28/08/2013 01:29 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 
>.unitednationsinternationalchildrensemergencyfund 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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>Content-Type: 
>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>         name="IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments from"
>  Carlton.docx"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=
>         "IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments 
> from Carlton.docx"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_hkwtipk41