[At-Large] Is there a Need for a PDP to resolve the IOC/RCRC Issue?

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 01:41:28 UTC 2012

Thanks Alan. Firstly this is still a draft and I will finalise prior to
sending my final submissions to you. My comments are inline:

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> Sala, I do not have the time to reply in detail to your long
> communique, but a few points may be appropriate:
> - It is not the GNSO but the IOC/RC Drafting Team that has issued a
> consensus call.
> Yes, it is the GNSO IOC/RC Drafting Team who are polishing their
recommendations to the GNSO Council which may then possibly go before the

> - Regarding whether other IGOs (note IOC is not actaully an IGO, but
> close) will later qualify for additional protections.

 This is one of the considerations that ICANN staff raised within the
Preliminary Issue Report about making clear which International
Organisations can benefit, hence the need for a PDP. This is why it is in
the global communities interest to have access to the Final Issue Report
prior to this consensus call.

> I will not try
> to guess at what the GAC may do at some later date, but so far they
> have not put other groups in the same pot, despite some of their
> members calling for such action.

We do not have to guess what the GAC will do as they have made their
position pretty clear in light of what they think the criteria is which is
essential protection for treaties based organisation that are also
protected by statutes. This clearly makes it a whole lot more than 2.

> I call your attention to the
> briefing paper that the Board used (among other things) to make its
> original decision.

I had read them Alan prior to writing the first draft submissions. One of
the things that came up during the Preliminary Issue Report was deciding
which of the three categorisations for International Organisations which
included things like whether they should include Multinational Corporations
(MNCs) etc etc

> Specifically, that there were not other
> organizations that seemed to qualify under both international treaty
> AND national laws. The paper which was redacted from the Board
> briefing materials was released a while ago. See
> www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.pdf
> .
> My comments are same as above.

> - Although the issue of IGOs is not new, even if the GNSO had acted
> on the 2007 proposal to create a new (or modify an existing) dispute
> resolution mechanism, we would likely still be in the same boat today
> with regard to protecting names at the 2nd (or 1st) level. The
> dispute mechanism, if it existed, would allow IGOs to fight
> registrations that potentially conflicted (such as  typo-squatting or
> used the name in conjunction with other words). So that would have
> protected the names after the fact as the UDRP does for
> trademarks.ANd even if we now give protection against registering
> exact strings of IGO names, there would still be a need for an
> IGO-friendly dispute resolution mechanism.
This was raised by the 2007 Issue Report and the fact that the GNSO council
failed to gather the requisite number of votes is the reason why we are in
this mess in the first place. Having said that, there is room to turn this
around and make it into what this was originally about which is "Internet
Governance" with reasonable cause, I have highlighted certain obstacles and
potentially pitfalls that ICANN may have to be wary of in making the
decision that the GNSO IOC/RC should be reminded to take note of.

> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

More information about the At-Large mailing list