<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Oups ... I have quoted very badly from RC/RC's comment. <br>
<br>
I have updated <font color="#ff0000">(...)</font> the quotes below
to keep only substance and merit and not inter-governmental
references of foundation. <br>
<br>
That being said, because RC/RC's comments were, on the whole,
founded on inter-governmental trearty-protections (it was stretching
a bit liberally its *logo* protections onto its names, though, if I
am to believe some knowledgeable commenter), the quotes below do not
represent the extent of the merit case that could be done in support
of protecting RC/RC's names in the DNS.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 3/15/2012 8:55 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F628F88.3010500@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Thx Rafik for walking the walk! <br>
<br>
I'd like to say that, after having read the Red Cross comment,
I've much more sympathy for its objectives than before. <br>
<br>
I still thinks that RC has plenty of ways to protect its names,
but I buy the argument that, from a global public policy
perspective, we should reserve its denominations in the DNS.<br>
<br>
I like the fact that the comment distinguished the basis for its
claim from trademark and that it made a thorough enough global <i>public
</i>policy defense.<br>
<br>
Consider the following sparse quotes from which I was careful to
exclude any *founding* references of an inter-governmental nature
:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ff0000">The emblems enjoy
two distinct purposes: <br>
<br>
-- to serve as the emblem of protection of the medical
services of armed forces on the <br>
battlefield; <br>
-- to serve as the emblem of identification of the respective
components of the <br>
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F628F88.3010500@gmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">If one were to refer here to language of
the gTLD Applicant <br>
Guidebook, one could say that the global public interests at
stake here rest primarily in a <br>
concern to uphold the protection of victims of war and of those
caring for them on the <br>
battlefield. Any misuse or misrepresentation of those protected
designations is liable due to <br>
the confusion it creates within the community as well as in the
mind of combatants on the <br>
battlefield, to undermine both the protection of victims and the
access of the Red Cross and <br>
Red Crescent to situations of humanitarian crises. <br>
<br>
The above carries the following two conclusions: <br>
<br>
-- the protection awarded to the Red Cross/Red Crescent
designations does not result <br>
from any trademark registration; </blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">the Red Cross/Red Crescent has a vested
interest in ensuring the <br>
protection of the designations from all forms of misuse or
misrepresentation. In this regard, it <br>
should be recalled: <br>
<font color="#ff0000"> (...)</font><br>
<br>
-- as for its emblems of Red Cross/ Red Crescent, its
designations must at all times be <br>
protected from misuse or misrepresentations. These misuses
bring risks and <br>
potential damage to the perception in the community of the Red
Cross/Red Crescent <br>
and to their operations in favour of vulnerable persons and
communities affected by <br>
armed conflict, natural disasters and other humanitarian
emergencies. Any misuse of <br>
the designations at any time erodes the respect that
belligerents and civilians have <br>
for the Red Cross / Red Crescent, thus compromising its ability
to fulfil its <br>
humanitarian mission. This is in particular the case if one
considers that the Red <br>
Cross/Red Crescent’s emblems and designations are often the
object of misuse by <br>
private companies including on the internet. To refer to the
wording of the Applicant <br>
Guidebook, these are designations, which are particularly
vulnerable to internet fraud <br>
and abuse, as illustrated inter alia by the numerous instances
of fraudulent use <br>
witnessed in recent humanitarian crises, such as the earthquake
in Haiti or the <br>
tsunami and ensuing nuclear crisis which affected Japan last
year. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I am loathe to *found* the global public policy arguments on which
to base ICANN's or GNSO's determination on inter-governmental
treaties<br>
<br>
(except, perhaps, where these are of the nature of *fundamental
rights*; I think RFC's should be the only 'founding' we should
need ― and remember that the US White Paper was presented as a
RFC)<br>
<br>
but if governments, who'se <i>Raisons d'État</i>s have given us
time and time again reasons to cast doubt on their sense of global
rationality and selfless serving of the public Good, have
determined that they were willing to forgo the tactics of
impersonating RC/RC in their dealings with each other, I do not
see why we could not do the same here.<br>
<br>
I would be receptive to accepting a language that would
permanently protect RC/RC names and some variations, in both Top
level Domains and elsewhere, if it would make the appropriate
preamble that it does not receive special considerations because
of some inter-governmental treaty, or because it is a 'brand' and
RC/RC thinks it is not cost effective to guard its interests in
the proper channels, but because the Internet community is not
less receptive than the International community to the common
sense that dictates that people abuse of the RC/RC denominations,
thus depriving it of some integrity capital necessary for it to
carry its mission. <br>
<br>
The RC/RC is, truly, an organization with a one-of-a-kind mission
that *depends* upon reasonable people saying, prior to needing its
services, that they will not impersonate it, and that they will
let those who present themselves bearing its denominations go
about carrying their missions unimpeded.<br>
<br>
Thanks again Rafik for enabling this engagement on the merit, and
perhaps for saving gNSO and ICANN from itself, as Milton puts it.<br>
<br>
Submitted respectfully,<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 3/15/2012 1:51 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:13971283.73151331833914015.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I followed online and was very impressed with Mary's calm and patient approach. Congratulations!
Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.aiti-kace.com.gh">www.aiti-kace.com.gh</a>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU"><mueller@SYR.EDU></a>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 5:48:09 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
Here is my blog's account of the meeting:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html</a>
Mary was great, btw. But I cast Rafik Dynamic as hero of the story.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
The Council had a vigorous and long debate on the issue at our public
meeting yesterday. As soon as transcripts and recordings are available,
we'll post them as it is hard to capture the intensity of the discussion
via email summary. For now I thought it might be helpful to add a few
comments to the ongoing discussion on this list:
- the NCSG Policy Committee works on a consensus basis, and is comprised
of the Councilors, SG chair and official representatives from each
Constituency, including candidate constituencies. The decision to
request a deferral was not unanimous, but was arrived at after long
discussion (into Tuesday night and Wednesday, up to almost the time for
the Council meeting!) and consideration of the views of members, as
expressed on this list and the public comments submitted so far.
- in addition to the formal NCSG statement that was read out at the
Council meeting, several Councilors and members who were present
emphasized that the deferral request was not a delay tactic (as other SG
reps alleged) but a genuine attempt to defend due process as well as
highlight new developments that might justify further discussions and
possible amendments for the final vote - including at least part of the
new NPOC proposal (submitted to the Drafting team over the weekend),
recent comments this week by a few GAC members (including Portugal's),
and changes to the draft motion occasioned at least in part by updates
from the Red Cross and IOC reps at this meeting.
- the NCSG PC and EC reps present at the council meeting agreed, upon
request by other community members and Councilors, that it would be open
to calling a special Council meeting upon closure of the initial public
comment period (23 March) without waiting for the reply period to end
(14 April), as that would allow for sufficient public comment while
still ensuring that the Council would not be asked ultimately to vote on
a moot point (as 14 April would be 2 days after applications close for
new gTLDs). However, we requested that the special Council meeting take
place only if and after the Drafting Team has time to consider all the
public comments submitted and possible revision of the motion as a
result.
- the DT will recommence discussions next week and start reviewing
public comments submitted by then. Thank you to the members who have
written in so far; if you have not but have views on the issue, please
do so at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal">http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal</a>-
02mar12-en.htm
- finally, a reminder that this issue and the motion before the Council
is only in respect of the top level for this first round. More work will
then commence on second level protectikns for this and all future
rounds, as well as issues concerning top level protection for the second
and future rounds. This last may include consideration of the formal
request the ICANN Board made a few days ago, to both the GNSO and the
GAC, for policy advice regarding the recent request by intergovernmental
organizations for additional top and second level protections for their
names as well.
I hope this helps!
Mary
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
typographical errors.
"Alain Berranger <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alain.berranger@GMAIL.COM"><alain.berranger@GMAIL.COM></a>"
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alain.berranger@GMAIL.COM"><alain.berranger@GMAIL.COM></a> wrote:
The inclusion of a reference to the NPOC proposal cannot be
interpretated by anyone as a reason for deferral. The statement being
read under NCSG is actually by NCSG-PC where only 1 NPOC member's
opinion does not represent an official NPOC position.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Robin Gross <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"><robin@ipjustice.org></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Deb,
RedCross / IOC's request for special rights was a subject of
significant discussion at Monday's NCSG Policy Committee Meeting and
also at the NCSG membership meeting yesterday. The members of the
committee agreed with the deferral. You can listen to the recordings
of these meetings or read the transcripts to get a more precise
understanding of the position. Pity you did not participate in any of
these discussions. NPOC representative (acting vice-chair of NPOC)
Alain Berranger confirmed in an email to the NCSG-PC some changes he
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">wanted to the NCSG stmt and they were incorporated.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> See here:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html</a>
It is worth noting, however, that positions by the NCSG are not taken
by the constituencies, but by the individual members on the PC, which
includes
2 NPOC representatives.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
Robin,****
** **
Robin,****
** **
Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this
decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">this
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">decision by any NCSG constituency? ****
** **
Thanks,****
Debbie****
****
** **
*Debra Y. Hughes *
*Senior Counsel *
** **
*American Red Cross*
2025 E Street, NW****
Washington, D.C. 20006****
202.303.5356 (p)****
202.303.0143 (f)****
*Debra.Hughes@redcross.org*
** **
*From:* NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] *On Behalf
Of *Robin Gross
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
*Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of
the
Vote****
** **
NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy
development process in this way. At a time when multi-stakeholder
processes on the Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both
questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes.
Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote
at least until the public comment period is closed.**** Here are the
reasons for our deferral.**** One of the most important parts of the
ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public
engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their
views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN's
ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a
decision before they have all been received? The council should not
hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a
new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some
international organisations for special consideration while ignoring
others without full comment. The critical importance of public
comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of
the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:**** "In trying to make
the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has
failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to
employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed
explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have
influenced the development of policy consideration," and to
"continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN
receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions
taken and the rationale thereof)." [1]**** We could not agree more
with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group - the IPC.**** The
community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this
issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier
this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations
Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less
arbitrary standard for reserved names.**** The NCSG-Policy Committee
believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full
guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to
vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.****
------------------------------
[1]
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-e">http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-e</a>
n.htm,
paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.****
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ceci.ca">http://www.ceci.ca</a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/"><http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-
directors/></a>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a> Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org">www.gkpfoundation.org</a> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chasquinet.org">www.chasquinet.org</a> interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG,
ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://npoc.org/">http://npoc.org/</a>
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>