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

[Evan Leibovitch]

> Without getting into what was or wasn't said, the statement you have
> drafted - at least on the substance - is more of an expression of opinion
> as to whether the Olympic and/or red cross names should be protected.


Not really. It's specifically an opinion on whether the IOC and Red Cross
have *more* entitlement than, say, FIFA or Oxfam in the ICANN context. I'm
aware of the treaties but don't believe that those necessarily translated
into what the Board has demanded.

We went through a lot of pain to get a process that allows the GAC to
object to applications it doesn't like. These names, IMO are a perfect
example of what that objection process is for.


>  In fact, the statement explicitly states that such protections are
> "publicly harmful."  If you could please update your statement to include
> the legal, factual or other basis for that claim, that would greatly assist
> the drafting team in its deliberations.


All ALAC advice is opinion. In this case the statement is a (proposed)
expression that the At-Large community believes that, out of concern for
end-user confusion and naming consistency, the proposal is badly flawed. We
are neither mandated, requested nor resourced to provide legal or expert
rationale for our opinions; we're merely doing our best to discern the
end-user PoV.

If the GAC or GNSO has expressed or implied that further modification
to the AG in this matter serves the public interest, this statement will
indicate that ALAC (as the body expressly mandated to speak for the global
end-user public) respectfully disagrees. Strongly.


The IOC, IRC and GAC have provided ample evidence of treaties and national
> law, each of which very strongly protect the Olympic and Red Cross marks.


Then those laws will apply appropriately; there's no reason for ICANN to
augment what exists, especially after the AG was supposedly "nailed down".
If parts of the AG can be re-opened for modification in this manner, ALAC
has a shopping list for re-consideration as well....


>  It is by no means a perfect solution, but the Governments have brought to
> us a proposal and we evaluated it.


Or rather, a proposal was forced upon the DT which is trying to determine a
least-bad implementation.

This is exactly why the proposed advice statement is not inconsistent with
Alan's comments within the drafting team. While he's trying to help make
the most of a horrid situation, we still (IMO) have an obligation to state
publicly that this is a horrid situation that the Board could have avoided.

You have cited to the Multi-stakeholder process in your statement, but the
> governments are also part of the multi-stakeholder model as well and due
> consideration and respect must be given to their consensus
> statements/proposals if we are to succeed in the private-public partnership.
>

Due consideration and respect? Sure.
Imposition over direct objections of other stakeholders, overriding
previous consensus? No.

I believe that much of At-Large (at least all who I have spoken to) shares
the PoV that the way this was handled was a perversion of the MSM. I'm not
sure that such an opinion has an appropriate legal definition, but it
appears to apply well.

Cheers,

- Evan