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

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Elizabeth,

The proposed statement is specifically to deal with the after-the-fact
changing of the Applicant Guidebook regarding two specific
organizations. The more general question of "why are all names in the
reserved list there?" is well beyond its scope and long past useful debate.

- Evan

On 4 March 2012 15:14, Elisabeth Porteneuve <
elisabeth.porteneuve at latmos.ipsl.fr> wrote:

>  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> <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 listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>  _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>