Well, as long as we're taking a vote, even if only informally, +1. I also endorse Kathy and Milton's previous discussion. Prejudging TM infringement by entities that are not formally part of the public judicial/court system constitutes an inappropriate delegation of active preemptive legal authority to non-judicial, non-independent decision-makers (as Milton notes: the "intermediary responsibility problem") and seriously undermines legal accountability. If capture of public governance by elite powers for narrow interests is a bad thing when it happens with an elected/appointed government, it is far worse in the context of a quasi-autonomous/authoritative non-governmental organization with far less direct structural accountability to a strong, effective independent judiciary. It is "industry capture" on steroids -- an escape valve from any meaningful checks and balances (as Milton notes: "powerful chilling effects"). It's the preemption of public governance by private governance -- still "governance" any way you look at it, and going in the wrong direction with regard to public accountability. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 10:12 AM -0700 7/22/12, Robin Gross wrote: >Weighing in on this issue, personally, my preference is for Option 1 below >since no new changes have been shown to be needed. There are already >existing mechanisms in place that provide ample opportunity for these >groups to protect their legitimate rights. What they want is something >more: global exclusive licensing rights - which does not exist anywhere in >law, but the culture of ICANN is not one of asking hard questions when big >players want special privileges. > >So much of ICANN's energy is being drawn into this single tiny issue, >which is really so insignificant in comparison to the big picture issues >ICANN is facing (like pressure from govts and altering DNS). And this >issue was dealt with about 5 years ago when the Reserve Names Working >Group decided these kinds of protections were a rat-hole and recommended >against doing what RC/IOC now ask for. So let's not let it waste anymore >of the community's energy and attention on these excessive special >privileges and let's see how the existing protection mechanisms play out. > Indeed there were no "bad applications" in the first round that needed to >be stopped based on these group's legitimate rights. So why is it sucking >out all of ICANN's energy and attention? And what is the community not >facing because we are all focused on RC/IOC's request for special >privileges? So I vote for Option 1 below. > >Thanks, >Robin > > > >On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >>>From: Brian Peck <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> >>> >>>Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC >>>names in new gTLDS >>> >>>Date: 18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT >>> >>>To: "<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]" >>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> >>>List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS >>>In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please find >>>below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to date for >>>moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and >>>IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS: >>> >>>1. Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections >>>for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of >>>second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). >>>2. Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as >>>extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all or a >>>subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each organization's names. >>>3. Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now and >>>wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after the >>>delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or consider lowering >>>costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( i.e., Thomas Rickert's >>>proposal) >>>4. Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part >>>of a broader PDP on the protection of names for international >>>organizations >>>5. Ask ICANN General Counsel's office to conduct a legal analysis to >>>substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or >>>statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and >>>RCRC names by law. >>> >>> >>>Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything further at >>>this time. Thanks. >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>Brian >>> >>>Brian Peck >>>Policy Director >>>ICANN