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

[Joy Liddicoat]

Hi Konstantinos - one follow up on this. I keep going first principles and
the whole concept that it is inappropriate to talk of ownerships of a domain
name (RFC 1591). My worry with giving the IOC and Red Cross this
decision-making power (option 5 and 6) is that we are effectively creating a
moderated space. I still think Option 1 is better (implement the guidebook
as it is and if it is problematic, tell the Board so in a review of the
first round of new gTLDs). 
Or maybe we should suggest a new moderated TLD space:   .gac 

Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:36 p.m.
To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top
Level

Thanks Joy - the more I think about it the more I reject option 3 or any
option for that matter that will require legitimate applicants (existing
trademark owners, the Greek gov. etc) to ask for IOC's permission. What does
this permission mean? Currently, in most of the cases, it comes with license
fees. Does it mean that an applicant, even if they get permission by IOC,
they will have to pay a license to do so? 

As there is a great possibility for IOC to charge for these 'permissions' -I
am not sure how we can water this down. This is already an expensive process
and 'permissions' have the tendency to come with 'costs', especially when we
are talking about an entity that makes all its money through sponsorship
deal and by taking advantage of the Olympic name.

Originally, I found ridiculous the idea that legitimate rights' owners would
have to ask for a permission to use a term that they lawfully hold; now, I
find it both ridiculous and scary that they might even have to pay for it.

I could work with option 7 :)

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-Regulat
ion-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy at apc.org]
Sent: Τρίτη, 14 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 2:28 πμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top
Level

Hi KK and thanks for your mammoth efforts on this, especially as I missed
the last call.
I remain convinced Option 1 is preferable - Option 3 is clearly a
modification of existing policy and not a simple matter of "implementation".
If Option 3 requires some modification I would suggest and amendment making
it clear that any string similarity review must be conducted in an impartial
manner and therefore not by any party connected to the IOC or RC. 
In relation to the other questions, I favour only applying the proposal to
the languages set out in the GuideBook and also only in this round (it can
be reviewed after the first round - we are, after all, in new territory as
these discussions over the last 4 months show).
Perhaps, if there is no agreement there is an option 7: The specific names
are locked and no-one can have them ;) Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2012 10:56 p.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: 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-Regulat
ion-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.