I am a little put off by this proposal.  If the IOC and Red Cross are
allowed as philanthropic organizations to grab second level domains, who is
to judge which second level domains should be protected? Why shouldn't Médecins
Sans Frontières be accorded this status?  What about Jimmie's Little League
Fund raising organization?  It would seem that if approved future petitions
would be harder to reject by the GAC as the structure for exception would
have been created.

As detailed in the appendix of the GAC Proposal numerous laws and
legislation exist regarding the Red Cross and the IOC's brand.  As these
laws exist I would prefer to see these organizations use them instead of
trying to fundamentally twist internet governance to their whim.  The
existing TLD's have functioned without this kind of "more equal" status
accorded to organizations and should stay as such.

-Mike

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I would be curious to know what the NCSG membership thinks about this
> proposal from GAC to give special privileges to the Red Cross and
> International Olympic Committee in the top-level domain name space.
>
> The GNSO Council will have to vote on this proposal soon, so some awareness
> and input from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group on the underlying issue
> would be very helpful.
>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf
>
>
> Thank you,
> Robin Gross
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *September 19, 2011 11:07:42 AM PDT
> *To: *liaison6c <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: **[liaison6c] GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red
> Cross/Red Crescent*
>
> FYI
> ** **
> Dear Councillors,****
> ** **
> The advice provided  by the GAC  has been posted on page :
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence****
> ** **
> And can be directly viewed at
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.pdf
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf
> ****
> ** **
> Item 11 on the GNSO Council agenda has been updated to read as follows:***
> *
> *Item 11: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes)*
> As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed
> a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained
> the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b):****
> Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs:****
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm****
> Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red
> Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application
> round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global
> public interest.****
> The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent
> by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some
> guidance:
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf****
> On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing advice
> on this topic:****
> GAC advice:****
> 1) possible UDRP<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.pdf>
> ****
> 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf>
> ****
> The Council should now discuss next steps and possible courses of action,
> starting with an answer to the GAC.****
> 11.1 Discussion
> 11.2 Next steps****
> Thank you very much.****
> Kind regards,****
> ** **
> Glen****
> ** **
> ** **
> Glen de Saint Géry****
> GNSO Secretariat****
> [log in to unmask]****
> http://gnso.icann.org****
> ** **
> ** **
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>