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

[Avri Doria]

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