[ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Nov 14 00:26:15 UTC 2013


The final report has been drafted and can be 
found at 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf. 
There were significant changes from the earlier 
draft, but mostly in format and clarity. As a 
result, several of the comments that we made on 
the draft version are no longer applicable. I am 
attaching a copy of the revised statement that I 
propose to submit for inclusion in the report. 
For ease of access for those travelling, I am 
also appending the text to this e-mail.

There were NO substantive changes made to this 
statement from the version approved by the ALAC 
(as a comment on the draft report). Only those 
parts no longer applicable were deleted. Those included:
- removal of the list of specific ALAC positions, 
since they are now included in the body of the report;
- removal of the reference to some items being 
classed as having strong divergence where there 
was really a consensus NOT to do them (the report now says that).

To be considered by the GNSO in its meeting next 
Wednesday, the minority statement needs to be 
submitted by Friday. Unless I hear any concern 
with this being done, I will submit it by that deadline.

If there is a problem meeting the deadline, we 
can still submit it before it goes to the Board, 
but the GNSO will not have the benefit of having 
it in the version they consider (presuming a 
decision is taken next week and it is not deferred).

Alan

==========================

ALAC Minority Statement on the Final Report on 
the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP

The ALAC has made a number of statements on the 
protection of IGO and INGO names, and has 
participated actively in all GNSO activities 
related to this topic. Our views on specific 
outcomes of this PDP are reflected in the Final Report.

Given the wide range of views expressed in this 
report, and noting that nothing presented has 
received the unanimous support of the PDP Working 
Group, the ALAC would like to take this 
opportunity to comment on the nature of the 
Recommendations as well as identify the 
principles that have guided its positions.

The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of 
Recommendations some reflecting a WG Consensus 
(as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) 
some with an even weaker level of support. Not a 
single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full 
Consensus), a level of support that is more 
typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many of the 
recommendations originally considered by the WG 
and strongly supported by some, the overall 
participant views were Divergent. If the 
Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong 
support were implemented, there is no assurance 
that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies.

The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting 
blocking-level protections may prohibit other 
reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not 
satisfied that the exception procedure options 
outlined in the report could meet the targets 
that the ALAC believes are mandatory.

This being the case, it may be important to 
consider the principles that guided the ALAC in 
our participation in the activities that led to 
this report, and that the ALAC believes should 
guide ICANN in considering any special protections.

1.	ICANN should grant special protection to 
organizations that further the public interest 
and in particular, those with a strong track 
record of humanitarian activities. However, such 
protections should only be granted where there is 
a history or reasonable expectation that the lack 
of protections would lead to the 
misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, 
deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance.

2.	Such protections, when granted, should not 
unreasonably impinge on the ability of others 
with a valid right to use the protected string 
from registering such names for uses which do not 
negatively impact the protected organization nor 
use the protected name with the intent to deceive 
users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary 
to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote 1]

3.	The procedures used to grant the protection 
exceptions identified in number 2 must be both inexpensive and fast.

4.	No top level protections are necessary. 
Existing or new objection processes are sufficient.

Footnote 1:   Although not a gTLD registration, 
cern.ca is a good example. The Centre 
d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec 
has no connection or even a vague relationship 
with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche 
Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an 
acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a 
prime example of a new registration that might 
not be allowed under the proposed rules even 
though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a 
logical registration for Olympic Paints.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC Minority Statement-v03.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20131113/706be061/ALACMinorityStatement-v03.pdf>


More information about the ALAC mailing list