[At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thanks for the comments, Avri.

I've tried to incorporate your comments into the statement.

- Evan


On 4 March 2012 13:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2012, at 11:39, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> >
> > The draft of this statement is located at
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+Red+Cross+and+IOC
>
> I support the statement, but have some difficulty with the wording of the
> last paragraph.
>
> > In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the
> ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and
> Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest, and
> to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body
> mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around
> the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of
> ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user
> benefit, while creating new potential sources of public confusion and
> instability.
>
> If I understand the statement correctly, my difficulty concerns two
> implications that on their surface appear contractory:
>
> - A Board reconsideration, if successful, could result in changing the AGB
> because they would have to drop the prohibition against anyone, including
> the IOC or RC, from applying for one of the listed IOC/RC names.
>
> - yet because it would be wrong to change an ongoing process at this late
> date, ALAC is asking that the AGB remain as it is
>
> While I support this combined  goal I think that it needs to be explained
> better.
>
> So, assuming I understand the recommendation being proposed in the draft,
> I offer some possible changes to this paragraph for consideration.
>
>
> In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN
> Board to reconsider its actions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names
> as being ultimately against the global public interest. ALAC advises that
> actions of the Board in this regard be reviewed with the purpose of giving
> the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interests involved in making
> such changes to implementations that were based on approved
> multistakeholder consensus policy.  ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to
> leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard.  Although it would
> have been better had the ICANN Board not decided as it did, changes to an
> ongoing process at the end of that process would be inherently unfair and
> detrimental.  As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of
> Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative
> damages the credibility of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without
> providing substantial end-user benefit, while creating new potential
> sources of public confusion and instability.
>
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>