Statement on IFRC and IOC - Who deserves special protection?

[Avri Doria]

Re: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.htm

In this statement I want to address the issue of the base on which organizations may deserve special protection.  The ICANN Board granted special to the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) and to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). 

- I will avoid, in this note at least, any discussion of whether it is appropriate to change the AGB after the application start date. I have made an argument for that in another comment.

- I will avoid, in this note at least, any discussion of the quality of the protection offered to the IFRC/IOC and whether the GNSO should add further protection to the IFRC/IOC.  I have made an argument on that in another comment.

- I will avoid, in this note at least, the question of whether the ICANN Board did the right thing in creating, without a proper GNSO PDP, a new class of modified reserved names.

- I will avoid, in this note at least, the question of whether it is appropriate for the GNSO council  to vote on a recommendation of a Drafting Team draft without a complete AOC/ATRT/Board determined comment period and without a call to the constituencies for comments.  I.e.this note will not address the appropriateness of the GNSO council circumventing the PDP and the precedence this might set for future emergency policy issues.  I have already commented on this in an earlier comments.

- I will avoid, in this note, the analysis necessary to differentiate between a policy issue and a 'mere' implementation issue.

The GAC recommended a set of criteria for special protection:

- protected by International law
- protected by national law

the GAC has also advised that only the IFRC & IOC meet this criteria.

This brings up two questions that need to be explored in a policy development process:

- Policy question: Is this the right criteria?
- Implementation guideline: are these the only organizations the meet these criteria?

On the first question, NPOC, one of the 2 full status constituencies in the NCSG, has made suggestions that these criteria were too narrow and that they excluded organizations that had a equal claim of protection based on the value they brought to the world in terms of saving lives or in terms ameliorating the conditions of billions of people's lives.  If, as stated by the distinguished members of the GNSO Council during its meeting in Costa Rica, people will die if the IFRC/IOC are not further protected, so too, will many people die if these other organizations are not also protected.  Can the GNSO council overlook these other potential deaths or the misery this would bring? If they beleive that the Objection Process does not provide adequate protection, can they afford to ignore the death and misery the omission of these other organizations will bring about?

On the second question, the implementation guideline, I have not seen any studies showing that these two organizations are the only organizations that meet this criteria.  If there are other such organizations as was indicated in a recent Circle-id article, then perhaps the unfairness of these rules is being compounded by the way the policy advised by the GAC is being implemented by the Board and Staff.

I personally beleive that the Objections Process is sufficient for protecting all of these organizations, and I beleive that this was the conclusion of the GNSO PDP on new gTLDs. Though as I have argued elsewhere, the fees a charitable organization would have to pay might be at the expense of their good works and perhaps should be waived for all such NGOs.  I have no secret of my belief that the fees being charge for objections and for responses are fundamentally unfair.

But I also grant that the GNSO might have overlooked something in coming to the conclusions it came to.  So if, as the GAC and members of the GNSO Council have argued, the protection through Objection Process is insufficient for the IFRC/IOC, then it is also insufficient for many organizations such as  Medicins sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, or others (Full Disclosure: these three are organizations to whom I make contributions, whereas I do not contribute to IFRC/IOC - except perhaps by consuming sports entertainment licensed by the IOC and or by giving blood to the IFRC).  Before ICANN singles out two (2) organizations for protection beyond the special protection of modified reserved names already granted in the AGB, it should review the propriety of its policy definition and the scope of its implementation.

As I have argued in another note, changing the protection already granted to IFRC/IOC in the Guidebook without restarting the application clock is fundamentally unfair. I am not suggesting a change unless the application period clock is restarted after such a change is made.  And I am not suggesting such a restart of the clock.  What I am suggesting is that the status quo of the current AGB be allowed to stand, unfair though it may be, and that an issues report be requested on the issue of protection for worthy charitable organizations at the top and second level.

I recommend that the motion be amended to request an issue report be created on the topic of IGO and NGO Charitable organizations that may be deserving of special protections in gTLD top and second level names.  

Avri Doria