Opinions? Fwd: [] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS

[Nicolas Adam]

I think Evan's points are sensible.

I would add ― and hopefully it makes some sense ― that sometimes 
organizations, governments, and other political body (even sometimes 
including courts, Supreme Ones, too) go to great length to do something, 
not for the sake of its *policy-effect*, but for the sake of its 
*political-effect*, on its legitimacy [or insert your favorite concept], 
on the ideological [your favorite concept] structure underlying 
issues-axis, on the legal [normative or some other concept] structure 
underlying issues-axis, or forother some such long term 
strategical/structural reasons.

There are more considerations than just stopping fraud'n phishin' to 
this quandary. It is naive not to recognize this, not the other way around.

There is the issue of the GAC and GNSO's relationship with it. How is 
option 1 helping this? We display strength, which is good, but we don't 
harness any of it for future fights, which is bad. No principles becomes 
enshrine with option 1, because obviously we say nothing that will be 
lasting about *why* we do nothing. We stress and gain (I suppose) the 
importance of process. Not so bad, but I contend we could be doing more. 
The Board has few ally on its gTLD plan and NCSG (and gNSO) is one of 
those few. There is missed opportunity here. We should not ask for a 
legal study, we should give RC its candy while coughing it in a legal 
language that will have lasting effect. This is by far the best option 
we have. *How* and *why* we act are more important than what we do in 
this instance (I'm assuming we can give RC a candy in such a way as to 
gather strength for future fights. I could be wrong. But I won't know 
until we've explored and debated this).

There is for instance the issue of the MSM relationship to both 
technical and the global [not inter-national] community which needs to 
be strengthen.

Those political-jurisdictional-foundational issues aren't going anywhere 
anytime soon. And the other issue-axis, well, they are issue-axis! They 
are here to stay. Every time we have a chance to put pressure our way on 
one of the many underlying political foundation of ICANN/MSM, it is 
irresponsible to let it pass. Other interests having differing preferred 
positions on some issue-axis than NCSG does, don't usually miss out on 
any of those opportunity, and they try to hammer home some ways that 
will not only lend them victory on this issue short term, but also on 
the longer term on the related axis.

It is true that it doesn't help that we don't have a 
simile-constitutional principles/jurisdictional/political set to push. 
But I contend that whatever it is we are doing or not entails and 
enables (if slightly) some simile-normative positions. When we stay with 
more "technical" issues, and refrain from pushing more political 
foundational stuff, we might be doing some prudent good-governance but 
we are also actually missing out on advancing some positions on debates 
that will come back. Crucially, others are not so idle.

Just laying these thoughts out there. I'm not assuming we can etch out 
something quick in the dead of night here. And in the immediate absence 
of some set of principles that bear longer term strategical impact 
politically and around which we can work, then it might makes sense to 
go the route of option 1. But I would contend that we would need some 
more thoughts toward asserting our own preferred foundation, derived 
from human rights and from the service to the global community as it may.

Nicolas


On 7/23/2012 2:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 23 July 2012 13:54, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au 
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>
>             As far as the issue of charitable names being exploited
>     for fraudulent purposes, as discussed by Evan and Milton - it
>     seems to me, from discussions with the charities, that the *real*
>     solution that the charities need (and not just the ICRC, with its
>     unique legal protections, but ANY charity) is basically a takedown
>     solution like those provided by the APWG etc. Fraud is fraud, we
>     need good solutions to stop fraud - but not only will special
>     rules for the ICRC not have a large effect on fraud targeted
>     against charities in general, it won't even eliminate fraud
>     against the ICRC - much fraud against the ICRC appears to use
>     domain names that don't include the specific protected
>     designations redcross etc, but just variations such as just
>     somethingrc.org <http://somethingrc.org>. If the specific redcross
>     term and other protected designations were protected at the second
>     level, we'd see fraudsters simply switch to less preferred names,
>     such as variations on namerc type 2LD names, and 3LDs and such.
>
>
> Agreed 100%.
>
> The kind of issue people in ALAC were responding to were the 
> short-term scam sites such as "redcrosshaitirelief.com 
> <http://redcrosshaitirelief.com>", ones that specifically used the 
> charity's name (specifically its conventional Internet 2LD names) 
> inside bogus 2LD strings. As I mentioned in the earlier email, there's 
> also agreement that nothing is special about the Red Cross in this 
> regard, I would consider "unicefhaitifelief.org 
> <http://unicefhaitifelief.org>" or "oxfamhaitirelief.net 
> <http://oxfamhaitirelief.net>" to be just as bad.
>
> As such, I would remind that ALAC has never been in favour of any Red 
> Cross or IOC or IGO restrictions on TLDs -- ever. Some of you may 
> recall that I was in the room near the end of the g-council debate on 
> the issue in San Jose, ready if necessary to detail ALAC's just-passed 
> statement supporting the NCSG position. There is similarly no belief 
> in special treatment for IGOs, *especially* considering that most of 
> them possess the rare qualifications for the exclusive .int TLD 
> already. So our position on gTLDs is still one of no change to 
> existing policy.
>
> Furthermore... I never, in my original comment, suggested that prior 
> restriction -- at any level -- was our direction, only that a 
> legitimate larger issue, buried within the RC/IOC/IGO mess, did bare 
> consideration. We don't claim the answer yet, just ask the question 
> (that indeed does not yet appear to have been asked -- in all these 
> years -- from the PoV of the end user rather than the registrants.) 
> There are many possible approaches, not all of which have had a proper 
> hearing to date. We're totally aware of the limitations of ICANN and 
> domain names, and that removing obviously fraudulent strings won't 
> eliminate phishing or fraud. But it is also wrong to refuse to do 
> anything because no solution can be complete. And denying of scammers 
> the ability to use (clearly) fraudulent domain names impairs their 
> ability to do SEO to increase traffic to their sites.
>
> ICANN's denial of responsibility for cleaning up a problem that its 
> policy enabled (ie, creation of fraudulent domains) simply offers 
> useful ammunition to those who would dispense with the 
> multi-stakeholder model completely, through demonstrating that one 
> significant stakeholder -- the end user being scammed -- is going 
> unheard by the MSM.
>
>     Their is a fundamental difference between the ICRC arguments based
>     on its special legal status, and arguments based on the ICRCs
>     mission and specific operation concerns. The arguments based on
>     the ICRCs special legal status are one thing. But the arguments
>     based on the humanitarian mission and operational concerns of the
>     iCRC could just as easily apply to organisations such as the MSF
>     or UNHCR. I wish a lot more of the effort that has gone into the
>     ICRCs arguments had gone into practical fraud takedown measures
>     that would be applicable to all charitable organisations.
>
>
>
> Agreed. IMO, ALAC is seeking to drive this forward in a useful manner, 
> by steering and focusing (rather than outright rejecting) the claims 
> in a manner that benefits the public interest.
> It would be nice if we could do this together with the NCSG, which is 
> why I'm writing this.
>
> - Evan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120724/1da71f64/attachment-0001.html>