Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

14 December 2018

ADOPTED

14Y, 0N, 0A

12 December 2018

13 December 2018

14 December 2018

17 December 2018

14 December 2018

AL-ALAC-ST-1218-04-01-EN

Hide the information below, please click here 


FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 



FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

The ALAC appreciates the work of the Reconvened Working Group for Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains (Reconvened WG) and the opportunity to comment on its recommendations as contained in the Final Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains Policy Amendment Process dated 05 August 2018.

The ALAC continues to take the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. Following our statement of support for the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs – Policy Amendment Process of 20 June 2018, (ref: AL-ALAC-ST-0731-01-01-EN), the ALAC: 

  • Supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations to the GNSO Council's proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #1, #2 and #3) as these provide clarity to the protection, exception and correction/modification mechanisms for the existing and agreed finite list of the full names of the 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies vis a vis Specification 5 of the Base Registry Agreement; and
  • Also supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations in addition to the proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #4, #5 and #6) as these provide clarity to the criteria and process to be used (including suggesting that any future changes to the finite list be proposed only by official representatives of the Red Cross Movement, as well as the involvement of the GAC and the GNSO Council) in the consideration of such proposed changes. 



DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

12 December 2018

The ALAC appreciates the work of the Reconvened Working Group for Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains (Reconvened WG) and the opportunity to comment on its recommendations as contained in the Final Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains Policy Amendment Process dated 05 August 2018.

The ALAC continues to take the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. Following our statement of support for the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs – Policy Amendment Process of 20 June 2018, (ref: AL-ALAC-ST-0731-01-01-EN), the ALAC: 

  • Supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations to the GNSO Council's proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #1, #2 and #3) as these provide clarity to the protection, exception and correction/modification mechanisms for the existing and agreed finite list of the full names of the 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies vis a vis Specification 5 of the Base Registry Agreement; and
  • Also supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations in addition to the proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #4, #5 and #6) as these provide clarity to the criteria and process to be used (including suggesting that any future changes to the finite list be proposed only by official representatives of the Red Cross Movement, as well as the involvement of the GAC and the GNSO Council) in the consideration of such proposed changes. 

6 Comments

  1. Given that the ALAC had a short statement of support for the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs – Policy Amendment Process (i.e AL-ALAC-ST-0731-01-01-EN), I thought it would be good for the ALAC to follow that up with another short statement of support for this follow-on proposed consensus policy for the Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains.

    In essence, I see the current proposed consensus policy to be a refinement of the recommendations contained in the earlier initial report which we supported and I see no reason why we should't also extend our support to the current proposed consensus policy, which is the subject of this public comment.


    Draft

    The ALAC appreciates the work of the Reconvened Working Group for Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains (Reconvened WG) and the opportunity to comment on its recommendations as contained in the Final Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains Policy Amendment Process dated 5 August 2018.

    The ALAC continues to take the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. Following our statement of support for the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs – Policy Amendment Process of 20 June 2018, (ref: AL-ALAC-ST-0731-01-01-EN), the ALAC:- 

    • Supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations to the GNSO Council's proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #1, #2 and #3) as these provide clarity to the protection, exception and correction/modification mechanisms for the existing and agreed finite list of the full names of the 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies vis a vis Specification 5 of the Base Registry Agreement; and
    • Also supports the Reconvened WG's recommendations in addition to the proposed amendments (i.e. Recommendations #4, #5 and #6) as these attempt to harmonize the implementation of the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy consensus policy (as approved by the ICANN Board in April 2014 in relation to certain specific IGO and INGO names) to changes to the reserved list developed for National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society names. These provide clarity to the criteria and process to be used (including suggesting that any future changes to the finite list be proposed only by official representatives of the Red Cross Movement, as well as the involvement of the GAC and the GNSO Council) in the consideration of such proposed changes. 

    Side note (just for reference but need not be included in the statement)

    R#1 deals with the placement of the existing agreed finite list of the full names of the 191 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies onto Specification 5 of the Base Registry Agreement

    R#2 creates the allowance of an exception procedure is to be put in place for cases where the relevant Red Cross or Red Crescent Organization wishes to apply for its protected string(s) at the second level

    R#3 provides that future error corrections, additions to and deletions of any entries in the finite list of reserved names and their agreed variants be made only in accordance with the criteria developed by the WG and listed in Recommendations #4-6 below.

    R#4 provides that future changes (if any) to the finite list of National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies created as a result of this policy amendment process be made only in accordance with the established variant criteria (as contained in the current Final Report.

    R#5 recommends that any and all future changes to the finite list be made only upon notification to ICANN Organization and the confirmation, by official representatives of the Red Cross Movement, to the effect that: (a) the proposed changes have been communicated to the GAC as well as the GNSO Council; (b) any new National Societies to be added to the list have been recognized in accordance with all the applicable rules and procedures of the Red Cross Movement; and (c) any proposed deletions from the list are based on the cessation of operations of that National Society or its removal from the movement in accordance with all applicable rules and procedures of the Red Cross Movement.

    R#6 recommends that a proposed correction of any errors (e.g. in translation or spelling) in the finite list of reserved names be made only through the submission of a formal request to ICANN Organization by official representatives of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and/or Registry Operators describing in detail the nature of the error and the specific correction to be made in the form of a direct replacement to the erroneous entry. The ICANN Organization shall have the right to refer the request.

  2. Thank you for this brief comment on this topic, Justine.  I am wondering if you can review this sentence please.  " ... as these attempt to harmonize the implementation of the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy consensus policy (as ....names) to changes to the reserved list developed for National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society names. 

    1. How about I just simplify the sentence and strike out a whole string of text as shown in my original comment? Makes it a whole lot easier to understand.

        1. Thank you Justine Chewand Maureen Hilyard; noted in the posted statement in "Draft Submitted for Discussion".

  3. This is an excellent statement: Thank you Alan and Justine. I fully support it