[At-Large] [ALAC] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
javrua at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 02:39:01 UTC 2016
Aware that I am not formally an ALAC member yet, I announce that I generally side with Evan's points on this issue. I wonder though if it's at all helpful to limit any future protection to IGO's that are truly "public" in the Public International Law sense (e.g. treaty based organizations or agencies of such organizations) and/or that carry out high public interest duties spelled out in treaties or conventions (Red Cross/Red Crescent), as opposed to entities such as the IOC, or FIFA for that matter, which might or might not enjoy a level of international personhood under International Law, and which might or might not carry out duties which are commendable and in the International and national public interest, but which in many ways can be described as corporate entities. Have these juridical distinctions been discussed before?
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org> wrote:
> I am in favor to have such names of International, recognized by UN, but it needs to be quite clear – role, recognition of the work etc , or all NGO in the world would like to have similar privilege and this will be impossible.
> I would like to not have those well-known organization to be ignored, if we do not have a quite clear selection of which organization will be in this “privileged list”.
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
> Sorry for any typos.
> From: <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM
> To: "bzs at TheWorld.com" <bzs at theworld.com>
> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>, 'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
> So... to industry, the domains of the Red Cross and its affiliates are merely a special form of trademark, just like Coca-Cola.
> From a public interest PoV, I posit that they are vastly different. Coca-Cola does not have a business model of soliciting charitable donations, in every country, for distribution in other countries. It is not depended upon for relief activity or critical medical-related public information. It is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a foundation of global humanitarian activity. Similar things can be said about a number of other international agencies (ie, UNICEF, WFP etc), though maybe not quite at that level.
> If ICANN's "community" wishes to maintain oblivion to the distinction between the ICRC and Coca-Cola, that is its right. But that should not stop those representing the public interest at ICANN -- governments and At-Large -- from asserting the distinction, and using whatever bylaw-allowed tools are at their disposal to encourage ICANN to balance industry needs with those of the non-domain-buying public. If the processes created by ICANN's compact of domain buyers and domain sellers -- the GNSO -- cannot accommodate that distinction, then the problem is in the process and not in the fact that a distinction exists.
> If the response is that there are indeed specific IGOs -- that face the public directly and who trade in international public trust -- that deserve protection but that not all IGOs do, that is a reasonable response and IMO a foundation for compromise. I would be happy to participate in a group that created objective distinction criteria and/or identified the IGOs worthy of global protection. I don't think that more than a dozen or so IGOs meet this public trust criteria, but those that do are indeed worthy of special treatment.
> But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals).
> - Evan
> PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large