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