Evan,

Let's provisionally accept your/ALAC's stance on RC to see where it leads.

One of the most important things we're doing here at ICANN and NCSG is
dealing with governance: what are the procedures that we use to govern the
structure of policy-making at ICANN.

Any time there is an ad hoc decision, it causes a problem for a
generalized governance structure.  So, how does the de-linking precedent
formally (or even informally) constrain future decisions of a similar ad
hoc nature at the Board level?  Is "not at all" an accurate description?

You're focusing on outcome here, not process.  There is substantial
breadth of opinion on the outcome, as it is.  But process seems to have
been trashed along the way (at least from the PoV of someone, myself, who
was not involved).  It feels like the rule of law has given way to the
rule of elite humans.

If it is true that "this is an instance -- maybe one of the very few --
where protection can provide real public benefit" then what exactly are
your specific *general* criteria for making this judgment?  How do/can we
apply those criteria to other cases as they arise?  Can we get ICANN as an
institution to agree to those criteria formally?  How do we ensure that it
remains "one of the very few" and not a precedent for much wider ad hoc
decision-making?

This feels uncomfortably like opening the Pandora's Box of ad hoc
procedure, and that's really what this is all about at the end of the day.
 NCSG has generally been on the side of pushing back against ad hoc
policy-making.  If there are special cases, then we need to establish
formal criteria and procedures for handling them so that they don't spread
like wildfire to undeserving cases.

Dan

PS: I won't be able to participate in the London meeting any more than
other recent meetings.  Have a very productive time, everyone!


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



On Thu, June 19, 2014 9:08 am, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> For what it's worth....
>
> There are people on ALAC who have seen explicit attempts by fraudsters to
> exploit red-cross-name domains to solicit fake charitable funds from
> unsuspecting people. Not only is there no problem within At-Large with
> doing "backflips" for the Red Cross, arguably protection of its names will
> lead to less *actual* end-user harm than most potential infringements in
> the commercial world.
>
> There was IMO substantial progress and good news from the Board action, in
> that it separated protection for the Red Cross and International Olympic
> Committee, two cases which the GAC has repeatedly lumped together. The IOC
> was extremely aggressive in its participation in the Working Group formed
> to address the issue. The ALAC had fought hard to de-link the RC and IOC
> and I'm happy that the Board has chosen not to treat the two identically
> as
> the GAC had requested. The two are VERY different when it comes to public
> protection and fraud avoidance.
>
> Anyway... I am writing here just as suggestion to perhaps cut the Red
> Cross
> a little slack. Its own internal politics notwithstanding, it is
> unarguably
> an extraordinary organization, that has a substantial public-facing
> presence and actively solicits charitable funds. Its names are very
> vulnerable to abuse, and its presence in short-term emergency events makes
> it especially exposed to quickly done exploitive registrations (ie,
> redcrosshaitistormrelief.com).
>
> While there is much reason to be concerned in the over-reaching of name
> protection within ICANN, I think this is an instance -- maybe one of the
> very few -- where protection can provide real public benefit.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
> On 19 June 2014 11:20, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I am also VERY concerned about this latest attempt to change GNSO policy
>> and expand trademark privileges even further post hoc.  How many
>> backflips
>> is ICANN supposed to do for the Red Cross?   How much community time and
>> energy is spent on creating special privileges for these special
>> interests.
>>  Just imagine if all this energy and resources could actually be put
>> toward
>> something worthwhile.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:33 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>
>>  To NCSG Councilors,
>> This is interesting as it expands the Trademark Clearinghouse in ways
>> that
>> it was never intended to be expanded. As you know, the TMCH was a narrow
>> mechanism - to give trademark owners with a clear, registered trademark,
>> a
>> place to put it.
>>
>> As these IGO names go into the Trademark Clearinghouse, we (NCSG reps in
>> the GNSO Council) must require them to have some sort of *description of
>> their purpose *-- something equivalent to the "description of goods and
>> services" of a trademark. Because of these descriptions of goods and
>> services, trademarks are limited, and trademarks such as Delta Faucets,
>> Delta Airlines and future Deltas can co-exist.
>>
>> But here it appears we are being asked to protect the IGO acronym in the
>> abstract - some sort of protection of mere letters -- an absolute
>> ownership
>> of characters. But that can't be right - as the WHO (World Health
>> Organization) coexists with The WHO (the rock and roll group).
>>
>> Please remind everyone that the TMCH registrations are a basis for URS
>> proceedings (the ultra-fast uniform rapid suspension of New gTLD domain
>> names).  So without descriptions, the World Health Organization will
>> come
>> to own the string "WHO" with no bounds, no limits, and an almost
>> absolute
>> ability to pull it from anyone else using the string (including other
>> noncommercial organizations sharing these common 3-letter acronyms in
>> completely different areas of operation).
>>
>> Even IGOs have bounds and limits - and a clear description of the areas
>> and communities they serve.  This needs to be added to the requirements
>> if
>> these terms are to be added into the TMCH database.
>>
>> *What is the deadline here, and how can we work together (Councilors and
>> those in NCSG who helped design (and limit) the TMCH) to help define and
>> further limit this new IGO registration? *
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy:
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>> Date: 	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:11:04 +0100
>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: 	<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Organization: 	Afilias
>> To: 	<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI and for further discussion / follow-up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>]
>> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 21:09
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing an update
>> on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the GNSO policy
>> recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO identifiers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Megan
>>
>>
>>
>> Megan Bishop
>>
>> Board Support Coordinator
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>
>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894
>>
>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808
>>
>>
>>
>> /One World. One Internet./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>