Here we go again.  Yes, the Red Cross is a worthy organization recognized by international treaties, various national laws and is an NCSG member.  I might be persuaded that it deserves 'protection.'  I might ask why it deserves more protection that other worthy organizations - say my local public broadcasting affiliate, or UNESCO or the associations for the blind or ...  I might take a different position on the IOC.
 
But I'll leave that debate to others.
 
What concerns me is that once again, we're only worried about the rights of an organization and its trademark.  There remains no protection for or consideration of individual domain name holders.  These large organizations can take care of themselves.  They have the resources to hire attorneys, take action against "bad actors", and defend themselves against inappropriate complaints.  I certainly understand their wish to minimize their costs by preemptively adjusting the rules to protect themselves.
 
Where is the similar discussion about protection for individuals?  Families?  Clubs of a few people?  We can't rely on trademarks, because as non-commercial entities, we can't get a trademark.  Even if we could afford one, trademarks by definition must be used in *commerce*.
 
So why can't we focus some energy on protecting the rest of the membership?  I suggested .TFZ (trademark free zone) a while back, but although there were no alternatives offered, the consensus was that anything that could be seen as weakening a trademark anywhere was was unacceptable to the members holding trademarks.  So we seem to be focused on (even only responsive to) trademark issues - albeit for "non-commercial" holders.
 
If all we're going to be is a niche in the trademark wars, I don't see what NCSG is doing for me...
 
I'd like to hear from the candidates - what ideas do you have for protecting the domain name interests of the non-trademark holding members?  How can we reconcile the trademark holders' interests, which are recognized in law, with the interests of those who can't obtain trademarks for their uses and have no law to fall back on?  Surely we can come up with administrative/policy solutions - or even advocate for appropriate law?
 
I'd also like to see other members take an interest in something other than how to tweak trademark-based rules... (And once in a while, Whois privacy :-)
 

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.


From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 19:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG input on request for special privileges for Red Cross & International Olympic Committee regarding Internet domains

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.


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
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:
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:
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




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451