[ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 4 20:32:52 UTC 2014
See embedded. Alan
At 04/11/2014 02:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I put the substance of what the GAC is asking
>for related to the Red Cross in a VERY different
>category from their advice that the topic should
>not be subject to a policy development process.
>âThe point is, the GNSO has already â
>âhad its PDP on the issue, and when given the
>opportunity did not endorse the necessary
>protection for the Red Cross. Its report,
>finished late last year, was full of
>contradictory positions and different levels of
>consensus, mixing in the Red Cross protections
>with those of groups that were far less in need
>of protection (ie, the International Olympic Committee).
>And clearly, having done this PDP already, there
>is an insufficient level of enforcement of Red
>Cross (and associated org) names at the current time.
>As these names are not usually protected by
>trademarks but in many cases by explicit
>national laws and international conventions, the
>usual ICANN remedies such as the Trademark
>Clearinghouse may not be appropriate.
>If a PDP has already been done, what are the
>options? Another PDP be initiated for many of
>the same issues, will take more years to
>complete, years during which countless
>fraudulent and misleading names will be
>registered with no ICANN-endorsed limit or remedy.
AG: The recommendation related to the RCRC have
not yet been addressed by the Board. There is a
provision in the PDP to re-convene a PDP WG to
consider explicit changes should the GNSO Council
choose. Essentially, the Council needs to provide
potential recommendations and the PDP WG will agree or disagree.
*IF* the GNSO decides to go that route (and there
is great opposition, particularly from the NCSG
who opposed most all of the added protections
with the exception of NGOs), and IF the WG agrees
with the new Recs, it is a done deal and will not
take very long. If either of those fails, we are back where we started.
In my opinion, the reason that the 189 country
names were not protected was not a philosophical
reason, but that the RC dropped the ball. These
names had been mentioned very early on, but then
were omitted from the documents when the PDP was
convened and most of the way through it. They
were resuscitated very near the end of the
process, and were viewed by many as the RC
getting largely what they had been asking for so
far, so they decided to up the ante. For this,
and one other reason (the registries had hammered
out an agreement about what they were going to
support, and they were just to tired of the whole
thing to re-open to consider these names (my
wording, not theirs)), this protection was not granted.
>What evidence exists that raising the issue
>again as a PDP would achieve a different result from what has already happened?
>such an approach even rational?â
>And even if a better result DOES come out of
>the process, two or three years from now
>â and burning hundreds more person-hours of volunteer timeâ
>, how much
>damage to the public good and public trust will have happened by th
More information about the ALAC