Page History

...

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

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

...

Introduction

The ALAC is pleased to provide our answers to the questions asked in the report.

We would have far preferred it if the WG had chosen to provide an opportunity for segregating answers based on the type of organization involved, but will nonetheless provide the requested answers identifying exceptions where needed.

To restate positions previously taken:

• The ALAC strongly supports the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent names.
• The ALAC does not see the need for protecting the IOC names, but in particular objects to unilaterally protecting strings (such as Olympic) which have wide usage outside of the IOC context.
• The ALAC strongly supports protecting the names of selected INGOs and supports the type of criteria described in section 4.5 of the report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.pdf)

In response to the specific questions (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-response-form-20jun13-en.doc), we offer our answers along with a rationale or other comments as applicable.

Top-level Protection

#	Option	Support?	Comments/Rationale
1	Exact match full name ineligible for delegation	No	The ALAC sees no need for any explicit protection at the top level. As fully explained in answers 4, 5 and 6, objection processes are sufficient for the rare times when there may be a conflict. Protecting these names, and then possible allowing exceptions, is adding needless complexity. Should exact matches ultimately be ineligible, the ALAC believe that there MUST be an exception process for cases (such as Olympic) where the string is in wide use unrelated to the protected organization.
2	Exact match acronym ineligible for delegation	No	Although the ALAC would be supportive of granting certain specific acronyms protection (such as UNICEF), in the general case, there is too much overlap with strings validly used by other organizations.
3	Exception process if blocked	No	As stated, the ALAC does not see the need to protect strings at the first level. If such protection is ultimately granted, it should apply to the protected organization as well with no exceptions.
4	No protection for exact match full name	Yes	In the opinion of some, the existing legal-rights objection is sufficient to allow the protection of any IGO-INGO name at the top level. If that is not indeed the case, then a specific new form of objection should be developed which does address the need to protect these organizations and as a side-benefit, allow then to apply for the string themselves. The process must allow for a enforceable PIC-like provision to ensure that a third party using an IGO-INGO name at the top level does not masquerade or otherwise usurp the IGO-INGO’s identity.
5	No protection for exact match acronym	Yes	In the opinion of some, the existing legal-rights objection is sufficient to allow the protection of any IGO-INGO name at the top level. If that is not indeed the case, then a specific new form of objection should be developed which does address the need to protect these organizations and as a side-benefit, allow then to apply for the string themselves. The process must allow for a enforceable PIC-like provision to ensure that a third party using an IGO-INGO acronym at the top level does not masquerade or otherwise usurp the IGO-INGO’s identity.
6	IGO-INGOs fee waiver for objections filed at top level	Yes	The ALAC supports such a waiver, to the extent that it applies to objections over the character string applied for with respect to their name/acronym. The ALAC supports having no reservations at the top level to prevent further complexity in the new gTLD rules, not to penalize possibly impacted IGOs and INGOs.

Second Level Protection

#	Option	Support?	Comments/Rationale
1	Exact match full name ineligible for registration	No	The ALAC could support this for most IGO-INGO names, but not for strings that are widely and legitimately used for purposes unrelated to the protected organization. “Olympic” is one such example.
2	Exact match acronym ineligible for registration	No	Although the ALAC would be supportive of granting certain specific acronyms protection (such as UNICEF), in the general case, there is too much overlap with strings validly used by other organizations.
3	Exact match full name in Clearinghouse-like service	Yes
4	Exact match full name and acronym(s) Clearinghouse-like service	Yes
5	Participate in Sunrise	Yes	Although the ALAC sees no reason to bar others from registering these names (as stated above), it does not object to granting IGOs and INGOs the same early registration privileges given to trademark holders.
6	90-claims notice	Yes
7	Permanent Claims Notice	Yes	The ALAC has previously gone on record as favouring a permanent claims notice in the general case, but with some caution regarding the lack of understanding of the chilling effects on legitimate potential registrants (see ALAC statement report to the STI Report). The ALAC supported the extended period “light” claims notice that was proposed for trademarks as a reasonable compromise. In this case given the relatively small number of names that would be covered, the ALAC would accept a permanent standard claims notice.
8	Fee waivers/reductions for entry into Clearinghouse-like service	Yes	This is provisional agreement, conditional on how the waivers/reductions are funded. The ALAC does not consider it reasonable to put the cost on either service providers nor on other Clearinghouse users. The ALAC does accept ICANN subsidization subject to ensuring that the total potential cost is reasonable. This is an issue that should have been dealt with long ago, and ICANN bearing the cost is reasonable under current conditions.
9	Ensure that UDRP/URS can be used by IGO-INGOs	Yes	Anything less would be patently unfair.
10	Fee waivers/reductions for UDRP/URS	Yes/No	The ALAC is sympathetic to the request, but given that the service to be provided is external to ICANN, the level of ICANN subsidization would be difficult to estimate and it would not be acceptable to have other service users or the providers subsidize such waivers or reductions, the implementation seems problematic and therefore probably not recommended.
11	Exceptions for IGO-INGOs registering own protected name, or 3rd parties registering protected name	Yes	Support of this is conditional on the cost and delay being VERY reasonable (compared to near-instant regular registration and typical domain name registration fees) and that the protected organization cannot unilaterally block such registration by third parties (either by delay or rejection).
12	No reservation of exact match full names	Yes/No	The ALAC believes that absolute reservations are generally not needed or desirable, but has supported the use of such protections in limited specific cases (such as the Red Cross names).
13	No reservation of exact match acronyms	Yes/No	The ALAC believes that absolute reservations are generally not needed or desirable, but has supported the use of such protections in limited specific cases (such as the UNICEF).

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Introduction

The ALAC is pleased to provide our answers to the questions asked in the report.

...

• The ALAC strongly supports the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent names.
• The ALAC does not see the need for protecting the IOC names, but in particular objects to unilaterally protecting strings (such as Olympic) which have wide usage outside of the IOC context.
• The ALAC strongly supports protecting the names of selected INGOs and supports the type of criteria described in section 4.5 of the report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.pdf)

In response to the specific questions (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-response-form-20jun13-en.doc), we offer our answers along with a rationale or other comments as applicable.

Top-level Protection

#

Second Level Protection

...