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

[Elisabeth Porteneuve]

Greeting,

I would agree with ALAC's opinion on Red Cross and International Olymic 
Commitee "we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red Cross and 
the Olympic movement protections not available to other rights holders", 
provided ICANN itself did not made the first reserved list of its 34 
names (of which only two are technical).

It is very complicated and costly to protect any name in gTLD space. 
While the trademark owners may use related laws to protect their names, 
the issue is by order of magnitude more complicated for organizations.

I would appreciate to see ICANN defending the name of "IANA". It's not 
an international treaty organization, just a name under .org, shared 
acronym. The same for applies for "IETF", "INTERNIC", etc. You cannot 
prevent anybody from the street to apply for those names. The similar is 
true for many organizations.

Understand me well - I have a great respect for all that names as for 
the history in the making in the Internet, and do not want to harm them.
Why there is no means to make reserved list for organizations?
Making defensive registrations is costly ($US 185,000 & more), and 
simply an overkill to protect an organization name.

Why ICANN is putting itself above the other rights holders?

Where is “the public interest” in creating instability for many 
organizations?


Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve

==
      Top-Level Reserved Names List
      AFRINIC
      ALAC
      APNIC
      ARIN
      ASO
      CCNSO
      EXAMPLE*
      GAC
      GNSO
      GTLD-SERVERS
      IAB
      IANA
      IANA-SERVERS
      ICANN
      IESG
      IETF
      INTERNIC
      INVALID
      IRTF
      ISTF
      LACNIC
      LOCAL
      LOCALHOST
      NIC
      NRO
      RFC-EDITOR
      RIPE
      ROOT-SERVERS
      RSSAC
      SSAC
      TEST*
      TLD
      WHOIS
      WWW



Le 04/03/2012 19:50, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>