(Please click "Adopted" to download a copy of the Final Statement)
|Vote Open||Vote |
|Vote Close||Date of Submission||Staff Contact and Email||Statement Number|
|19.10.2012||Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team – Recommendations||No Statement|
Brian Peck, Margie Milan
|Comment/Reply Periods (*)||Important Information Links|
|Comment Open:||28 September 2012|
|Comment Close:||19 October 2012|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59 UTC||Public Comment Announcement|
|Reply Open:||20 October 2012||To Submit Your Comments (Forum)|
|Reply Close:||9 November 2012||View Comments Submitted|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59 UTC||Report of Public Comments|
|Purpose (Brief):||The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) requests community comment on the latest recommendations created for second level protections of names relating to the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.|
|Current Status:||Open for Public Comment|
|Next Steps:||The Drafting Team's recommendations will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum and via final agreement of the Drafting Team members. Final recommendations will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration.|
|Staff Contact:||Brian Peck, Margie Milam||Email:||Policyemail@example.com|
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose|
As a result of IOC/RCRC being granted top level protections for the first round of the new gTLD program, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was further tasked to consider whether the same protections should be afforded at the second level prior to the first delegation of a new gTLD. Since the beginning of 2012, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) has deliberated about possible second level protections and how to respond to the GAC's request for protections. The DT now submits the recommendations formulated by the DT and makes them available for public comment before final submission to theGNSO Council.
Note from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Chair:
|Section II: Background|
The ICANN Board had requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded to the RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the Board authorized the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program "which includes the following elements: "the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook, subject to the revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: ...(b) 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....."
During September 2011, the GAC also sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level. In the same month, section 18.104.22.168.3 was added to the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated 19 September 2011.
As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO Council created a call for volunteers to form a drafting team about creating a response to the GAC. The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed has since created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level and includes an outline for a response to theGAC from the GNSO. The Drafting Team now wishes to solicit feedback from the community prior to submission of the recommendations to the GNSO Council.
See the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team page for more detail at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm
|Section III: Document and Resource Links|
|IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Recommendations Report [PDF, 152 KB]|
|Section IV: Additional Information|
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
In resolution NG2012.09.13.01 The Baord New gTLD Committee inquired about Global Public Interst concerns affecting a decsion to grant special second level protections to the IOC and the IFRC with regard to new gTLDs. This advice from ALAC addresses some of thos global public intersts.
First and foremost grouping IOC and IFRC for special treatment is inapproapriate. Both IOC and IFCR consider their case to be sui generis, and indeed the aguments that would serve to favor one of this pair, e.g. the IFRC due to its standing based on the Geneva Conventthe reasons would not pertain to the other, IOC. On the other hand if one where to look at the borader reasons for supporting special treatment one would fine that the category of those organizations to be considered much larger as it would need to include not only IGOs, who have repeatedly made their case through ICANN's processes, and other UN based huminatarian efforts. If ICANN is going to repsond to the needs of humanitarian diplomacy in the broader sense, it must be inclusive.
Another issue concerns the role ICANN in decding which organizations deserve such special treatment and which do not. whenever ICANN does make policy decsions on such matters, it has a set of established processes, the PDP, that guarantee that the fullest extent possible of global public interest is taken into account. For the Board, or the GNSO for that matter, to bypss this proceenders any decison arbitrary.
In order to meet it obligations in this matter ICANN must immediately embark on a proper PDP to establish a policy in time for the release on new gTLDs. this PDP must also consider the application of these protections to incumbent gTLDS, as it is clear that the continuing threat to the purposes of the IFRC, the IOC and other humnitarian efforts comes from activities in the incumbent gTLDs. Any moritorium to be establshed in the mantime should only be done voluntarily by the applicants for new gTLDs, and the Board should request that the applicants consider such action.
The staterment is intended to:
1) Be concise (no more than a page or two)
2) Primarily target the Board, not the GNSO
3) Deal with the proposed mechanisms, including PDPs and temporary lists
4) Address the foolishness of combining the IOC and RC, as a warning about ICANN's positioning itself to make judgements about groups worthy of protection (and who isn't)
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
avri 20/09/2012 17:48
sure. can i / should i mention the broader scope of the question? and keeping things short is my specialty - long is tough.
Here are supporting documents related to that effort:
WIPI-2 Report - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process2/report/index.html
WIPO-2 Summary - http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/JWGW2/WIPO2-note.pdf
ALAC Comment on WIPO-2 - http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/comment-wipo-13may03.htm
Issue Report - June 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf
Staff Report on a Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure - September 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
IPC Proposal - December 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf
Relevant GNSO Council meetings