Some additional information that may be of interest; attached is the formal ALAC statement opposing any further protections for the IOC/RC, adopted by the ALAC just yesterday.<br><br>Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.<br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: [council] ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue<br>From: "Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org><br>CC: <br><br>
As approved a few minutes ago.<br><br>
<br>
<b>ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN
THE GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE:<br><br>
</b>The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN Board,
its staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain names related
to the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to the poor precedents
these activities set forward both on substance and on process:<br><br>
<b>On substance,</b> we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red
Cross and the International Olympic Committee protections not available
to other rights holders. Substantial objection procedures were put in
place regarding the gTLD program, well capable of addressing all concerns
about confusion and misuse. ICANN�s Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC), which has raised the concerns about these names, indeed has its
own hard-won objection mechanisms in place.<br><br>
Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe
specifically that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related
names is against the global public interest. We note that many legitimate
uses of the word �olympic� and its derivatives are used for airlines,
cameras, restaurants, paint, and numerous businesses around the world
with no connection to the Olympic athletic movement or the IOC. These
businesses are not currently seen to be confusing with the olympic
movement, and we believe that needless restriction on these names --
beyond what already exists -- is publicly harmful.<br><br>
<b>On process,</b> it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a
hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden as a
result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept that the
GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was performing its role
according to its members� wishes. However, the ICANN Board�s imposition
of these wishes upon the community without prior consultation
demonstrates numerous flaws and poor precedents:
<ul>
<li>It is our understanding that the scope given the GNSO Drafting Team,
in debating this matter, precluded it from rejecting outright the
proposed changes because the Board had already forced the matter. The
Drafting Team was left in a position of refining -- and indeed
legitimizing -- a Board directive that many community members thought to
be objectionable outright;
<li>The overriding of broad consensus-based policy based on a bilateral
negotiation calls into question ICANN�s publicly expressed commitment to
maintaining (and indeed strengthening) its �multi-stakeholder model�. How
can ICANN's multi-stakeholder model claims be trusted when the community
consensus can be so easily overridden due to perceived political
expediency?
<li>The late date of this activity, changing the Applicant Guidebook so
long after its �final� version was published, reduces public confidence
and destabilizes the application process
<li>Why is this only about generic names? That is, why would
�co.redcross� be subject to pre-restriction but �redcross.co� not? The
uneven and unequal application of such a demand is the source of both
instability and confusion. The debate on such policy should not be
limited to the GNSO, since it is an issue affecting all domain names.
</ul><br>
We note many of our concerns about this process have been expressed in
Kurt Pritz�s March 2 letter to the GNSO Drafting Team. We believe,
though, that rather than simply requesting further details and
refinement, staff's concerns call into question the value of the entire
initiative.<br><br>
In view of the above, the <b>ALAC specifically advises and requests</b>
the ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and
Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest.
This matter<font color="#222222"> should be reviewed with the purpose of
giving the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interest related to
making changes to previously-approved multi-stakeholder consensus.
ALAC further advises the ICANN Board </font>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,
but has the effect of creating new potential sources of public confusion
and instability.<br>