NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Nicolas Adam]

Oups ... I have quoted very badly from RC/RC's comment.

I have updated (...) the quotes below to keep only substance and merit 
and not inter-governmental references of foundation.

That being said, because RC/RC's comments were, on the whole, founded on 
inter-governmental trearty-protections (it was stretching a bit 
liberally its *logo* protections onto its names, though, if I am to 
believe some knowledgeable commenter), the quotes below do not represent 
the extent of the merit case that could be done in support of protecting 
RC/RC's names in the DNS.

Nicolas

On 3/15/2012 8:55 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> Thx Rafik for walking the walk!
>
> I'd like to say that, after having read the Red Cross comment, I've 
> much more sympathy for its objectives than before.
>
> I still thinks that RC has plenty of ways to protect its names, but I 
> buy the argument that, from a global public policy perspective, we 
> should reserve its denominations in the DNS.
>
> I like the fact that the comment distinguished the basis for its claim 
> from trademark and that it made a thorough enough global /public 
> /policy defense.
>
> Consider the following sparse quotes from which I was careful to 
> exclude any *founding* references of an inter-governmental nature :
>
>> The emblems enjoy two distinct purposes:
>>
>> -- to serve as the emblem of protection of  the medical services of 
>> armed forces on the
>> battlefield;
>> -- to serve as the emblem of identification of the respective 
>> components of the
>> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

>> If one were to refer here to language of the gTLD Applicant
>> Guidebook, one could say that the global public interests at stake 
>> here rest primarily in a
>> concern to uphold the protection of victims of war and of those 
>> caring for them on the
>> battlefield. Any misuse or misrepresentation of  those protected 
>> designations is liable due to
>> the confusion it creates within the community as well as in the mind 
>> of combatants on the
>> battlefield, to undermine both the protection of victims and the 
>> access of the Red Cross and
>> Red Crescent to situations of humanitarian crises.
>>
>> The above carries the following two conclusions:
>>
>> -- the protection awarded to the Red Cross/Red Crescent designations 
>> does not result
>> from any trademark registration; 
>
>> the Red Cross/Red Crescent has a vested interest in ensuring the
>> protection of the designations from all forms of misuse or 
>> misrepresentation. In this regard, it
>> should be recalled:
>> (...)
>>
>> -- as for its emblems of Red Cross/ Red Crescent, its designations 
>> must at all times be
>> protected from misuse or misrepresentations.  These misuses bring 
>> risks and
>> potential damage to the perception in the community of the Red 
>> Cross/Red Crescent
>> and to their operations in favour of vulnerable persons and 
>> communities affected by
>> armed conflict, natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies. 
>> Any misuse of
>> the designations at any time erodes the respect that belligerents and 
>> civilians have
>> for the Red Cross / Red Crescent, thus compromising its ability to 
>> fulfil its
>> humanitarian mission. This is in particular the case if one considers 
>> that the Red
>> Cross/Red Crescent’s emblems and designations are often the object of 
>> misuse by
>> private companies including on the internet. To refer to the wording 
>> of the Applicant
>> Guidebook, these are designations, which are particularly vulnerable 
>> to internet fraud
>> and abuse, as illustrated inter alia by the numerous instances of 
>> fraudulent use
>> witnessed in recent humanitarian crises, such as the earthquake in 
>> Haiti or the
>> tsunami and ensuing nuclear crisis which affected Japan last year. 
>
>
> I am loathe to *found* the global public policy arguments on which to 
> base ICANN's or GNSO's determination on inter-governmental treaties
>
> (except, perhaps, where these are of the nature of *fundamental 
> rights*; I think RFC's should be the only 'founding' we should need ― 
> and remember that the US White Paper was presented as a RFC)
>
> but if  governments, who'se /Raisons d'État/s have given us time and 
> time again reasons to cast doubt on their sense of global rationality 
> and selfless serving of the public Good, have determined that they 
> were willing to forgo the tactics of impersonating RC/RC in their 
> dealings with each other, I do not see why we could not do the same here.
>
> I would be receptive to accepting a language that would permanently 
> protect RC/RC names and some variations, in both Top level Domains and 
> elsewhere, if it would make the appropriate preamble that it does not 
> receive special considerations because of some inter-governmental 
> treaty, or because it is a 'brand' and RC/RC thinks it is not cost 
> effective to guard its interests in the proper channels, but because 
> the Internet community is not less receptive than the International 
> community to the common sense that dictates that people abuse of the 
> RC/RC denominations, thus depriving it of some integrity capital 
> necessary for it to carry its mission.
>
> The RC/RC is, truly, an organization with a one-of-a-kind mission that 
> *depends* upon reasonable people saying, prior to needing its 
> services, that they will not impersonate it, and that they will let 
> those who present themselves bearing its denominations go about 
> carrying their missions unimpeded.
>
> Thanks again Rafik for enabling this engagement on the merit, and 
> perhaps for saving gNSO and ICANN from itself, as Milton puts it.
>
> Submitted respectfully,
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 3/15/2012 1:51 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon wrote:
>> I followed online and was very impressed with Mary's calm and patient approach. Congratulations!
>>
>> Dorothy K. Gordon
>> Director-General
>> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
>> Mobile: 233 265005712
>> Direct Line: 233 302 683579
>> Website:www.aiti-kace.com.gh
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Milton L Mueller"<mueller at SYR.EDU>
>> To:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 5:48:09 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
>> Subject: Re: NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
>>
>> Here is my blog's account of the meeting:
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html
>>
>> Mary was great, btw. But I cast Rafik Dynamic as hero of the story.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> The Council had a vigorous and long debate on the issue at our public
>>> meeting yesterday. As soon as transcripts and recordings are available,
>>> we'll post them as it is hard to capture the intensity of the discussion
>>> via email summary. For now I thought it might be helpful to add a few
>>> comments to the ongoing discussion on this list:
>>>
>>> - the NCSG Policy Committee works on a consensus basis, and is comprised
>>> of the Councilors, SG chair and official representatives from each
>>> Constituency, including candidate constituencies. The decision to
>>> request a deferral was not unanimous, but was arrived at after long
>>> discussion (into Tuesday night and Wednesday, up to almost the time for
>>> the Council meeting!) and consideration of the views of members, as
>>> expressed on this list and the public comments submitted so far.
>>>
>>> - in addition to the formal NCSG statement that was read out at the
>>> Council meeting, several Councilors and members who were present
>>> emphasized that the deferral request was not a delay tactic (as other SG
>>> reps alleged) but a genuine attempt to defend due process as well as
>>> highlight new developments that might justify further discussions and
>>> possible amendments for the final vote - including at least part of the
>>> new NPOC proposal (submitted to the Drafting team over the weekend),
>>> recent comments this week by a few GAC members (including Portugal's),
>>> and changes to the draft motion occasioned at least in part by updates
>>> from the Red Cross and IOC reps at this meeting.
>>>
>>> - the NCSG PC and EC reps present at the council meeting agreed, upon
>>> request by other community members and Councilors, that it would be open
>>> to calling a special Council meeting upon closure of the initial public
>>> comment period (23 March) without waiting for the reply period to end
>>> (14 April), as that would allow for sufficient public comment while
>>> still ensuring that the Council would not be asked ultimately to vote on
>>> a moot point (as 14 April would be 2 days after applications close for
>>> new gTLDs). However, we requested that the special Council meeting take
>>> place only if and after the Drafting Team has time to consider all the
>>> public comments submitted and possible revision of the motion as a
>>> result.
>>>
>>> - the DT will recommence discussions next week and start reviewing
>>> public comments submitted by then. Thank you to the members who have
>>> written in so far; if you have not but have views on the issue, please
>>> do so athttp://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-
>>> 02mar12-en.htm
>>>
>>> - finally, a reminder that this issue and the motion before the Council
>>> is only in respect of the top level for this first round. More work will
>>> then commence on second level protectikns for this and all future
>>> rounds, as well as issues concerning top level protection for the second
>>> and future rounds. This last may include consideration of the formal
>>> request the ICANN Board made a few days ago, to both the GNSO and the
>>> GAC, for policy advice regarding the recent request by intergovernmental
>>> organizations for additional top and second level protections for their
>>> names as well.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>> Mary
>>>
>>> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
>>> typographical errors.
>>>
>>> "Alain Berranger<alain.berranger at GMAIL.COM>"
>>> <alain.berranger at GMAIL.COM>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The inclusion of a reference to the NPOC proposal cannot be
>>> interpretated by anyone as a reason for deferral. The statement being
>>> read under NCSG is actually by NCSG-PC where only 1 NPOC member's
>>> opinion does not represent an official NPOC position.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Robin Gross<robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deb,
>>>>
>>>> RedCross / IOC's request for special rights was a subject of
>>>> significant discussion at Monday's NCSG Policy Committee Meeting and
>>>> also at the NCSG membership meeting yesterday.  The members of the
>>>> committee agreed with the deferral.  You can listen to the recordings
>>>> of these meetings or read the transcripts to get a more precise
>>>> understanding of the position.  Pity you did not participate in any of
>>>> these discussions.  NPOC representative (acting vice-chair of NPOC)
>>>> Alain Berranger confirmed in an email to the NCSG-PC some changes he
>>> wanted to the NCSG stmt and they were incorporated.
>>>>   See here:
>>>>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html
>>>>
>>>> It is worth noting, however, that positions by the NCSG are not taken
>>>> by the constituencies, but by the individual members on the PC, which
>>>> includes
>>>> 2 NPOC representatives.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robin,****
>>>> ** **
>>>> Robin,****
>>>> ** **
>>>> Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this
>>>> decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to
>>> this
>>>> decision by any NCSG constituency?    ****
>>>> ** **
>>>> Thanks,****
>>>> Debbie****
>>>>     ****
>>>> ** **
>>>> *Debra Y. Hughes *
>>>> *Senior Counsel *
>>>> ** **
>>>> *American Red Cross*
>>>> 2025 E Street, NW****
>>>> Washington, D.C. 20006****
>>>> 202.303.5356 (p)****
>>>> 202.303.0143 (f)****
>>>> *Debra.Hughes at redcross.org*
>>>> ** **
>>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
>>>> Of *Robin Gross
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
>>>> *To:*NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of
>>>> the
>>>> Vote****
>>>> ** **
>>>> NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy
>>>> development process in this way.  At a time when multi-stakeholder
>>>> processes on the Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both
>>>> questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes.
>>>> Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote
>>>> at least until the public comment period is closed.**** Here are the
>>>> reasons for our deferral.**** One of the most important parts of the
>>>> ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public
>>>> engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their
>>>> views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN's
>>>> ecosystem.  How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a
>>>> decision before they have all been received? The council should not
>>>> hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a
>>>> new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some
>>>> international organisations for special consideration while ignoring
>>>> others without full comment. The critical importance of public
>>>> comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of
>>>> the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:**** "In trying to make
>>>> the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has
>>>> failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to
>>>> employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed
>>>> explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have
>>>> influenced the development of policy consideration," and to
>>>> "continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN
>>>> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions
>>>> taken and the rationale thereof)." [1]**** We could not agree more
>>>> with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group - the IPC.**** The
>>>> community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this
>>>> issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier
>>>> this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations
>>>> Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less
>>>> arbitrary standard for reserved names.**** The NCSG-Policy Committee
>>>> believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full
>>>> guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to
>>>> vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.****
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-e
>>>> n.htm,
>>>> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.****
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-
>>> directors/>
>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca  Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
>>> www.gkpfoundation.org  NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,
>>> www.chasquinet.org  interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG,
>>> ICANN,http://npoc.org/
>>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>> Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120315/35b8a416/attachment-0001.html>