Well, as long as we're taking a vote, even if only informally, +1.

I also endorse Kathy and Milton's previous discussion.  Prejudging TM
infringement by entities that are not formally part of the public
judicial/court system constitutes an inappropriate delegation of active
preemptive legal authority to non-judicial, non-independent decision-makers
(as Milton notes: the "intermediary responsibility problem") and seriously
undermines legal accountability.

If capture of public governance by elite powers for narrow interests is a
bad thing when it happens with an elected/appointed government, it is far
worse in the context of a quasi-autonomous/authoritative non-governmental
organization with far less direct structural accountability to a strong,
effective independent judiciary.  It is "industry capture" on steroids --
an escape valve from any meaningful checks and balances (as Milton notes:
"powerful chilling effects").

It's the preemption of public governance by private governance -- still
"governance" any way you look at it, and going in the wrong direction with
regard to public accountability.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 10:12 AM -0700 7/22/12, Robin Gross wrote:
>Weighing in on this issue, personally, my preference is for Option 1 below
>since no new changes have been shown to be needed.  There are already
>existing mechanisms in place that provide ample opportunity for these
>groups to protect their legitimate rights.  What they want is something
>more: global exclusive licensing rights - which does not exist anywhere in
>law, but the culture of ICANN is not one of asking hard questions when big
>players want special privileges.
>
>So much of ICANN's energy is being drawn into this single tiny issue,
>which is really so insignificant in comparison to the big picture issues
>ICANN is facing (like pressure from govts and altering DNS).  And this
>issue was dealt with about 5 years ago when the Reserve Names Working
>Group decided these kinds of protections were a rat-hole and recommended
>against doing what RC/IOC now ask for.  So let's not let it waste anymore
>of the community's energy and attention on these excessive special
>privileges and let's see how the existing protection mechanisms play out.
> Indeed there were no "bad applications" in the first round that needed to
>be stopped based on these group's legitimate rights.  So why is it sucking
>out all of ICANN's energy and attention?  And what is the community not
>facing because we are all focused on RC/IOC's request for special
>privileges?  So I vote for Option 1 below.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>
>On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>>From: Brian Peck <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC
>>>names in new gTLDS
>>>
>>>Date: 18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT
>>>
>>>To: "<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]"
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS
>>>In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please find
>>>below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to date for
>>>moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and
>>>IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS:
>>>
>>>1.	Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections
>>>for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of
>>>second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).
>>>2.	Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as
>>>extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all or a
>>>subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each organization's names.
>>>3.	Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now and
>>>wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after the
>>>delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or consider lowering
>>>costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( i.e., Thomas Rickert's
>>>proposal)
>>>4.	Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part
>>>of a broader PDP on the protection of names for international
>>>organizations
>>>5.	Ask ICANN General Counsel's office to conduct a legal analysis to
>>>substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or
>>>statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and
>>>RCRC names by law.  
>>>
>>>
>>>Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything further at
>>>this time.  Thanks.
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>Brian Peck
>>>Policy Director
>>>ICANN