[gnso-igo-ingo] One point in the compromise spectrum

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The following are my own views.

Aspects of these views have periodically been discussed in the NCUC and NCSG 
discussion and policy lists.  No group decisions have been made yet.  I believe 
that many of these positions are consistent with prevailing viewpoints of the 
NCUC and possibly the NCSG.  Discussions will be initiated on this in the 
NCSG-dicuss  and -policy lists.

I. Reservations at the top and second level

I generally do not support adding to the reservation lists at either the top or 
second level.  I think this is consistent with NCUC and possibly NCSG positions.

I support objection procedures at the top level and RPMs at the second level 
should be made accessible to IGO/INGOs.  

I do not support the creation of new types of reservations lists, nor the idea 
of creating new forms of exception from reservation list.  If a name is put on 
the reservation list it must remain unused unless there are particularly 
exceptional reasons for allowing registrations.  The RESP process, because of 
its extraordinary difficulty, remains an appropriate means of removing items 
from the reserved list.  I do not support any form of exemption for names on a 
reserved list except the RSEP process.  Certainly within the RSEP process, the 
evidence of the privileged party should be taken into account, but only if it 
can be definitely shown and guaranteeed that no compensation either direct or 
indirect has been, or will be, given for the permission to register the name.  

If any names are put on the reserved list, the only names I would be 
comfortable with allowing are the Red Cross Red Crescent names.  Their 
situation appears to be truly unique given the International Law contained in 
the various Geneva Conventions, and their use of these names in war and 
catastrophe situations.  I believe there is other support for this position in 
the NCUC and the NCSG.

II Question Set 2

1.       Is there broad support by WG members for the registration of IGO 
acronyms into the TMCH?

Taking into account the operational policy difficulties as outlined by others 
and the need for these issues to be resolved before any implementation I 
support the inclusion of IGO full names in the TMCH for the purposes of claims 
service, but not sunrise purposes.

I would also support consideration of the inclusion of INGO acronyms in the 
TMCH on the same basis.

In terms of sunrise purposes, I believe that inclusion fo IGO full names should 
be recommended to registries as a optional RPM they should consider.

2.       Do WG members agree that if access to the TMCH were made possible, 
that this should be initiated by the IGOs seeking protection?

Yes, I think any inclusion should be initiated by the individual organization.  
This would be necessary for them to be able to offer any evidence of the 
justification for their claims.

In the first instance having been listed on a GAC list should be sufficient 
criteria, but having a list created by the GAC is not an optimal solution 
especially as INGOs and others apply for the protections. In the long run 
further criteria should be developed to cover the range of IGO/INGO that should 
get such treatment.  

3.       Per the thread below, what other operational issues should be 
considered or discussed to enhance this possible recommendation?

Agree with the list as laid out by Mason. I would extend the same 
considerations to INGO qualification - where there might be additional issues 
to be investigated.

III Fee waivers (and standing) could be considered for:

- Objections against applications for gTLDs / Top Level
  (responses to question set #3)

1.       Is there support for IGO, IOC, and RCRC to have equivalent standing 
similar to the GAC and ALAC for filing objections against top-level 
applications for gTLDs? (Note that there is no charge of a filing fee for that 
GAC and ALAC)

I have several issues with this.   

a. Any IGO name can well be considered for early warning by the GAC given IGO 
position as observers in the GAC

b. Any INGO could have applied to the At-Large for support in filing an 
objection against any name.

c. The IGO/INGOs have access to to the Independent Objector (IO)

I do not support giving IGO/INGO the same free objection as was given to each 
nation.  then again, I did not support giving a free objection to each nation.

2.       If there is no support for equivalent standing, is there support for a 
fee reduction for filing objections to new gTLD applications by IGO, IOC, and 
RCRC?

I believe they all had access to the GAC and IO filing mechanisms.  It is 
obvious that the GAC takes protecting these organizations seriously, so I have 
no difficulty believing they would have filed, and will file in the future, any 
necessary objections.

3.       If there is no support for either concept, what are your thoughts 
about the organizations seeking protection to collaborate with the GAC for gTLD 
applications where an objection is being considered?

I think IGOs should collaborate with the GAC and INGOs should collaborate with 
the ALAC.  

- Applications to the TMCH
- URS
- UDRP

A. I support the use of URDP and URS by these organizations and support the 
expansion of UDRP and URS as needed to add special protection privileges for 
IGO and INGOs.

I support creation of a fee support program for needy IGO/INGO to be able to 
use the various RPMs.  I think that most of the very high fees that ICANN and 
its myriad business partners (especially the dispute resolution organizations) 
charge for all the mechanisms to do with domain names should be subsidized for 
many public service and charitable groups.  I suggest that as was done for the 
Applicant Support Program a portion of the excess funds (aka profits when 
accumulated by a non profit) accumulated by ICANN, and in this case, the 
Dispute Resolution providers could be applied to such a purpose.

Against what standards would these applications be made?   

If we are going to allow people to apply for special protection for their names 
we have to take the widest possible approach to this and allow every INGO and 
charitable institution the same privileges.

There has long been a discussion of how the massive excess funds and profits 
accumulated by all in the process of creating and managing new gTLDs should be 
distributed.  This includes the discussion of how funds from auctions would be 
used.  There have been periodic discussions of establishing a fund management  
entity of some sort to manage and distribute such funds. the ICANN Board has 
the topic of a Foundation/Fund on its agenda to discuss at some point.   Given 
the public service obligations of a corporation in the public interest, I would 
suggest that this is an avenue that should be explored.

That is,  IGO/INGO, charities, developing economy NGOs etc should be subsidized 
in their access to the RPMS.  There is a need, however,  for checks and 
balances in administering these programs and with admission control to the 
special benefits. I believe that a mechanism similar to the SARP point based 
application developed by the ICANN staff with the assistance of the JAS working 
group should be established with the assistance of this group.   That is to 
say, while I believe there should a subsidy plan, I think there should be 
strict admission control to the process, including requirements for 
demonstrating both need and philanthropic bonafides.  

In order to give special benefits to IGOs, perhaps the GAC designated lists are 
intially sufficient.  In order to give INGO special benefits, a more involved 
support review panel mechanism would need to be developed.