Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

Thu Feb 9 10:55:50 CET 2012

Hi all,

A quick update on what happened at last night's call concerning the IOC and the Red Cross protections.

I communicated the position of the NCUC - mainly that an overwhelming majority of this group is against any sort of special protections (Option 1) for any of these marks, despite the fact that many members felt more sympathetic towards the Red Cross rather than the IOC. As expected, we were the only group that went for that option and there was a lot of discussion about that. I raised the point of the precedent this would set, a point that was shared by the Registry SG, only they felt that the GAC letter made it clear that no such precedent would be set. I disagreed. Both the IOC and the Red Cross have appeared to be pushing for Jeff's option number 3 - what Jeff termed as 'modified reserved names' ,which essentially means to elevate these two marks (and their variations) to the status that currently is enjoyed by ICANN's reserved names list, i.e the words 'example, 'ICANN' etc.

It appears that the majority of the group will try to work out language for this option 3 and also push for more languages to be included in the list of the existing 8 languages that the AG currently suggests. and, also they would like to see this kind of protection extending beyond this round. 

So, where are we right now? no decision has been taken of course, but NCUC is the only group totally against this kind of protection. Alan Greenberg was there as well and he stated that the ALAC position has not managed to reach a consensus but he sounded as if he was also going for option 3. (not sure if he was speaking on behalf of ALAC or in his personal capacity)

For me option 3 is really problematic and needs to be watered down significantly. Option 3 means, for instance, that if the Greek Government wished to apply for .Olympiad (the location where it all started - the Olympics) they will have to get permission from the IOC. This is a point I raised and Gregory S. Shatan, who is with the IPC said that he thought it was highly unlikely for a small village of 7000 people to apply for a gTLD - a point which pissed me off so I engaged in a quick history lesson about the Olympic games and where they were originally born :) 

The other issue that was discussed was whether the recommendations of this group would have to be reviewed. This was a point that Alan,  the IOC, the Red Cross and some others found to be quite burdensome and bureaucratic. However, I made very clear that this group is asked to come up with interpretations of international law and create 'new rules' - and mistakes are inevitable. So, the discussion was left that it would be ideal if a review were to be conducted but this should not be mandatory. Again, I disagreed and I will insist on making it mandatory, just like we made it mandatory for the URS to be reviewed after a year.

I would like this group to start thinking of other options rather than rejecting these protections. With or without NCUC, I think the group will come up with some recommendations. I know that we don't agree (and certainly I believe that this whole issue is going to backfire and neither of these entities should get special protection on the basis that there is no solid argument for this kind of protection) but I also think we need to engage if we wish to water down any of the proposals that come out of this group. 

Looking forward for your input on this.

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Κυριακή, 5 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 10:35 πμ
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

This has been a great discussion and thank you all for your contributions. Great points have been raised by all of you and, in particular, I think that the most crucial one is the kind of precedent this whole process will set, both from an institutional and substantive point of view. Both issues have been raised by myself and others, but the majority doesn't seem to think this as a problem either due to the fact that they are focused on this issue alone or because they don't see the GAC involvement as a 'tangible' threat to multistakeholder governance.

I will convey that the majority (NCUC) of this group is against any special treatment - my fear is, that we - NCUC - will be the only group going towards this. So, the question becomes: if consensus is achieved towards some sort of protection (which I suspect it will), do we engage in trying to water down these protections or not?

@Evan: I think NCUC (and certainly myself) would like to see an ALAC and NCUC collaboration on this front. I think that a joint statement might be of value to begin with and we can put this as an agenda item when we meet in Costa Rica.

Thanks

KK

From: Dan Krimm <dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM<mailto:dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM>>
Reply-To: Dan Krimm <dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM<mailto:dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM>>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:02:06 +0000
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

At 9:38 AM +0100 2/4/12, William Drake wrote:

So returning to KK's original message, I am for  Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal, with an objection on process and precedent grounds complimenting the substantive case.

I've not been counting, but this seems consistent with a clear majority of views expressed here to date.

On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

If there is interest in joint NC / AtLarge pushback I'll certainly help advance the idea.

My guess is that NCUC would be willing to pursue this.  Anyone disagree?

I concur with both of these.

Dan

PS:  Is it worth expressing a "second choice" in the case that Option 1 is rejected by the policy group?  Anybody for full ranked-choice voting here?

Not to confuse things...  ;-)

--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.