AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greogry:
I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand 
the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the 
statements below.  While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is 
based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end.
 
Wolfgang:
This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What 
happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear 
that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended 
the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a 
broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European 
Commission  was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when 
Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and 
the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for 
specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red 
organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But 
what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My 
warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless 
debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets special rights and who is 
not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third 
organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. And what happens if there "could" be 
first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? 
 
To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my 
proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names 
of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single 
organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those 
names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in 
my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not 
believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with 
the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of 
UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the 
Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). 
So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic 
and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the 
light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with additional 
language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been 
tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top 
Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the 
second level (where is no urgency) later.  
 
To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays 
discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its 
approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC 
letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC 
members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not 
underestimate the OECD argument. And even more if you go to the letter Steve 
Crocker has written to the 49 member states of the African Union and read the 
arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its 
variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by 
the chair of the board. As an African Union member state  I would raise the 
issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN 
rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should 
avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controversial 
discussions. 
 
Thank you.
 
Wolfgang