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

Fri Feb 10 19:38:51 CET 2012

I'd like to thank the people that have been doing gNSO politics for some 
time. It must have been very frustrating many times. For my little 
involvement, I get frustrated, so I can only imagine what it must be for 
more deeply involved people. It is my understanding that many here in 
NCSG have no financial stake/interest per se, unlike the contracted 
parties and the business side of the non-contracted parties. So ... hats 
off.

################

Substantive justification

Has it been determined how the incorporation of, say, option 3 will be 
justified in the guidebook or elsewhere? Because how it will be 
justified will inevitably bear an impact on the kind of precedent is 
set. Maybe there doesn't need to be any justification (maybe option 3 is 
better than 6 because of that? or maybe both need not be justified?)? In 
light of the other international orgs wanting like-treatment as the 
IOC/RC, this issue seems paramount.

Procedural justification

Is this process about bringing a recommendation to the Board for them to 
act on by rewriting the guidebook? If so, does it need be justified in 
order to say that the Board was not correct as a matter of procedure to 
make the first call it did with regard reserving some names for its 
first round? Will the absence of justification raise the possibility of 
the recognition of a procedural precedent?

I think those categories need to be considered before suggesting option 
6b as a possible compromise.

Nicolas

On 2/10/2012 9:57 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> It is an issue of choice and this choice is taken away when you have to ask the IOC for permission. And, I don't buy the argument that special protection are already in place for these names. I find it conveniently awkward that suddenly we look back at these conventions (which by the way protect the name along with the sign) but when it comes to other issues (i.e. trademarks) we are ready to disregard the law and create new rules. And, of course, there is this issue of how this whole process affects the bottom-up, multistakeholder of ICANN.
>
> I too hope that the Greek GAC rep wakes up and does something - or, at the very least, some government, other than the US and the UK, wakes up and puts a break to this process.
>
> 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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Παρασκευή, 10 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 2:50 μμ
> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
>
> Konstantinos
> So glad you were on the call to raise these points. I think the next step has to be to the Greek government to wake up and raise some objections in the GAC.
> Or if that is not possible, then the Council of Europe or other groups on GAC that are _supposed_ to understand international law and rights.
>
> Note that the point isn't whether a small Greek village is likely to apply for a TLD - the point is that they, and possibly many others within Greece, could make a legitimate claim to do so and that it would be unjust for them to have to seek permission from the IOC
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>> Konstantinos Komaitis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:56 AM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of
>> IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
>>
>> 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.