Oups ... I have quoted very badly from RC/RC's comment. I have updated (...) the quotes below to keep only substance and merit and not inter-governmental references of foundation. That being said, because RC/RC's comments were, on the whole, founded on inter-governmental trearty-protections (it was stretching a bit liberally its *logo* protections onto its names, though, if I am to believe some knowledgeable commenter), the quotes below do not represent the extent of the merit case that could be done in support of protecting RC/RC's names in the DNS. Nicolas On 3/15/2012 8:55 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > Thx Rafik for walking the walk! > > I'd like to say that, after having read the Red Cross comment, I've > much more sympathy for its objectives than before. > > I still thinks that RC has plenty of ways to protect its names, but I > buy the argument that, from a global public policy perspective, we > should reserve its denominations in the DNS. > > I like the fact that the comment distinguished the basis for its claim > from trademark and that it made a thorough enough global /public > /policy defense. > > Consider the following sparse quotes from which I was careful to > exclude any *founding* references of an inter-governmental nature : > >> The emblems enjoy two distinct purposes: >> >> -- to serve as the emblem of protection of the medical services of >> armed forces on the >> battlefield; >> -- to serve as the emblem of identification of the respective >> components of the >> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. >> If one were to refer here to language of the gTLD Applicant >> Guidebook, one could say that the global public interests at stake >> here rest primarily in a >> concern to uphold the protection of victims of war and of those >> caring for them on the >> battlefield. Any misuse or misrepresentation of those protected >> designations is liable due to >> the confusion it creates within the community as well as in the mind >> of combatants on the >> battlefield, to undermine both the protection of victims and the >> access of the Red Cross and >> Red Crescent to situations of humanitarian crises. >> >> The above carries the following two conclusions: >> >> -- the protection awarded to the Red Cross/Red Crescent designations >> does not result >> from any trademark registration; > >> the Red Cross/Red Crescent has a vested interest in ensuring the >> protection of the designations from all forms of misuse or >> misrepresentation. In this regard, it >> should be recalled: >> (...) >> >> -- as for its emblems of Red Cross/ Red Crescent, its designations >> must at all times be >> protected from misuse or misrepresentations. These misuses bring >> risks and >> potential damage to the perception in the community of the Red >> Cross/Red Crescent >> and to their operations in favour of vulnerable persons and >> communities affected by >> armed conflict, natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies. >> Any misuse of >> the designations at any time erodes the respect that belligerents and >> civilians have >> for the Red Cross / Red Crescent, thus compromising its ability to >> fulfil its >> humanitarian mission. This is in particular the case if one considers >> that the Red >> Cross/Red Crescent’s emblems and designations are often the object of >> misuse by >> private companies including on the internet. To refer to the wording >> of the Applicant >> Guidebook, these are designations, which are particularly vulnerable >> to internet fraud >> and abuse, as illustrated inter alia by the numerous instances of >> fraudulent use >> witnessed in recent humanitarian crises, such as the earthquake in >> Haiti or the >> tsunami and ensuing nuclear crisis which affected Japan last year. > > > I am loathe to *found* the global public policy arguments on which to > base ICANN's or GNSO's determination on inter-governmental treaties > > (except, perhaps, where these are of the nature of *fundamental > rights*; I think RFC's should be the only 'founding' we should need ― > and remember that the US White Paper was presented as a RFC) > > but if governments, who'se /Raisons d'État/s have given us time and > time again reasons to cast doubt on their sense of global rationality > and selfless serving of the public Good, have determined that they > were willing to forgo the tactics of impersonating RC/RC in their > dealings with each other, I do not see why we could not do the same here. > > I would be receptive to accepting a language that would permanently > protect RC/RC names and some variations, in both Top level Domains and > elsewhere, if it would make the appropriate preamble that it does not > receive special considerations because of some inter-governmental > treaty, or because it is a 'brand' and RC/RC thinks it is not cost > effective to guard its interests in the proper channels, but because > the Internet community is not less receptive than the International > community to the common sense that dictates that people abuse of the > RC/RC denominations, thus depriving it of some integrity capital > necessary for it to carry its mission. > > The RC/RC is, truly, an organization with a one-of-a-kind mission that > *depends* upon reasonable people saying, prior to needing its > services, that they will not impersonate it, and that they will let > those who present themselves bearing its denominations go about > carrying their missions unimpeded. > > Thanks again Rafik for enabling this engagement on the merit, and > perhaps for saving gNSO and ICANN from itself, as Milton puts it. > > Submitted respectfully, > > Nicolas > > On 3/15/2012 1:51 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: >> I followed online and was very impressed with Mary's calm and patient approach. Congratulations! >> >> Dorothy K. Gordon >> Director-General >> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT >> Mobile: 233 265005712 >> Direct Line: 233 302 683579 >> Website:www.aiti-kace.com.gh >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Milton L Mueller"<[log in to unmask]> >> To:[log in to unmask] >> Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 5:48:09 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia >> Subject: Re: NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote >> >> Here is my blog's account of the meeting: >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html >> >> Mary was great, btw. But I cast Rafik Dynamic as hero of the story. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The Council had a vigorous and long debate on the issue at our public >>> meeting yesterday. As soon as transcripts and recordings are available, >>> we'll post them as it is hard to capture the intensity of the discussion >>> via email summary. For now I thought it might be helpful to add a few >>> comments to the ongoing discussion on this list: >>> >>> - the NCSG Policy Committee works on a consensus basis, and is comprised >>> of the Councilors, SG chair and official representatives from each >>> Constituency, including candidate constituencies. The decision to >>> request a deferral was not unanimous, but was arrived at after long >>> discussion (into Tuesday night and Wednesday, up to almost the time for >>> the Council meeting!) and consideration of the views of members, as >>> expressed on this list and the public comments submitted so far. >>> >>> - in addition to the formal NCSG statement that was read out at the >>> Council meeting, several Councilors and members who were present >>> emphasized that the deferral request was not a delay tactic (as other SG >>> reps alleged) but a genuine attempt to defend due process as well as >>> highlight new developments that might justify further discussions and >>> possible amendments for the final vote - including at least part of the >>> new NPOC proposal (submitted to the Drafting team over the weekend), >>> recent comments this week by a few GAC members (including Portugal's), >>> and changes to the draft motion occasioned at least in part by updates >>> from the Red Cross and IOC reps at this meeting. >>> >>> - the NCSG PC and EC reps present at the council meeting agreed, upon >>> request by other community members and Councilors, that it would be open >>> to calling a special Council meeting upon closure of the initial public >>> comment period (23 March) without waiting for the reply period to end >>> (14 April), as that would allow for sufficient public comment while >>> still ensuring that the Council would not be asked ultimately to vote on >>> a moot point (as 14 April would be 2 days after applications close for >>> new gTLDs). However, we requested that the special Council meeting take >>> place only if and after the Drafting Team has time to consider all the >>> public comments submitted and possible revision of the motion as a >>> result. >>> >>> - the DT will recommence discussions next week and start reviewing >>> public comments submitted by then. Thank you to the members who have >>> written in so far; if you have not but have views on the issue, please >>> do so athttp://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal- >>> 02mar12-en.htm >>> >>> - finally, a reminder that this issue and the motion before the Council >>> is only in respect of the top level for this first round. More work will >>> then commence on second level protectikns for this and all future >>> rounds, as well as issues concerning top level protection for the second >>> and future rounds. This last may include consideration of the formal >>> request the ICANN Board made a few days ago, to both the GNSO and the >>> GAC, for policy advice regarding the recent request by intergovernmental >>> organizations for additional top and second level protections for their >>> names as well. >>> >>> I hope this helps! >>> Mary >>> >>> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or >>> typographical errors. >>> >>> "Alain Berranger<[log in to unmask]>" >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The inclusion of a reference to the NPOC proposal cannot be >>> interpretated by anyone as a reason for deferral. The statement being >>> read under NCSG is actually by NCSG-PC where only 1 NPOC member's >>> opinion does not represent an official NPOC position. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Robin Gross<[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Deb, >>>> >>>> RedCross / IOC's request for special rights was a subject of >>>> significant discussion at Monday's NCSG Policy Committee Meeting and >>>> also at the NCSG membership meeting yesterday. The members of the >>>> committee agreed with the deferral. You can listen to the recordings >>>> of these meetings or read the transcripts to get a more precise >>>> understanding of the position. Pity you did not participate in any of >>>> these discussions. NPOC representative (acting vice-chair of NPOC) >>>> Alain Berranger confirmed in an email to the NCSG-PC some changes he >>> wanted to the NCSG stmt and they were incorporated. >>>> See here: >>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html >>>> >>>> It is worth noting, however, that positions by the NCSG are not taken >>>> by the constituencies, but by the individual members on the PC, which >>>> includes >>>> 2 NPOC representatives. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote: >>>> >>>> Robin,**** >>>> ** ** >>>> Robin,**** >>>> ** ** >>>> Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this >>>> decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to >>> this >>>> decision by any NCSG constituency? **** >>>> ** ** >>>> Thanks,**** >>>> Debbie**** >>>> **** >>>> ** ** >>>> *Debra Y. Hughes * >>>> *Senior Counsel * >>>> ** ** >>>> *American Red Cross* >>>> 2025 E Street, NW**** >>>> Washington, D.C. 20006**** >>>> 202.303.5356 (p)**** >>>> 202.303.0143 (f)**** >>>> *[log in to unmask]* >>>> ** ** >>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf >>>> Of *Robin Gross >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM >>>> *To:*[log in to unmask] >>>> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of >>>> the >>>> Vote**** >>>> ** ** >>>> NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy >>>> development process in this way. At a time when multi-stakeholder >>>> processes on the Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both >>>> questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes. >>>> Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote >>>> at least until the public comment period is closed.**** Here are the >>>> reasons for our deferral.**** One of the most important parts of the >>>> ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public >>>> engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their >>>> views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN's >>>> ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a >>>> decision before they have all been received? The council should not >>>> hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a >>>> new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some >>>> international organisations for special consideration while ignoring >>>> others without full comment. The critical importance of public >>>> comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of >>>> the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:**** "In trying to make >>>> the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has >>>> failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to >>>> employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed >>>> explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have >>>> influenced the development of policy consideration," and to >>>> "continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >>>> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >>>> taken and the rationale thereof)." [1]**** We could not agree more >>>> with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group - the IPC.**** The >>>> community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this >>>> issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier >>>> this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations >>>> Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less >>>> arbitrary standard for reserved names.**** The NCSG-Policy Committee >>>> believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full >>>> guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to >>>> vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.**** >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-e >>>> n.htm, >>>> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.**** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, >>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of- >>> directors/> >>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >>> www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, >>> www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, >>> www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, >>> ICANN,http://npoc.org/ >>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >>> Skype: alain.berranger