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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can only 
comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do appreciate 
the argument that the official GAC position has not changed (meaning there is 
not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking for a change of course) 
the fact that we heard various GAC members expressing reservations and the 
potential implications of such protections should certainly be taken on board. 
This is significant as it manifests that the GAC might not be speaking as one 
voice in this issue; at the very minimum, these are new considerations that the 
DT should take on board.

At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that came from 
the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that it is 
very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, more will 
come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of protection. and, one 
could easily argue that there is potentially a more valid claim for these orgs 
to have their names protected than the IOC or the Red Cross. Are we really 
suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for instance, is more important or 
valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO?

I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the same way we 
have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, which I 
believe are significant.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC


It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather requesting a 
change of direction before we would consider changing course.  We have based 
our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until she as chair 
states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only rely on the 
official request we have.  On a side note, I would be very bothered if the GAC 
changed their request significantly after we had gone to all the effort we have 
to be responsive to their request and would like to think they wouldn't do that.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM
To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
I do not think that this is a wise way forward.  We cannot allow what a
very few members of the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from
our overall position and recommendations.  I got a full briefing on the
GAC discussion yesterday and do not believe we need to change course.
We should only change our course if during today's discussion between
the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so.  It is really not fair
for us to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC
members state.  It would be like another group changing their course on
what only a few few Councilors state.  GAC members, like Councilors,
are diverse.  Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one
way and express their views, that may not impact the view of the
COuncil as a whole.
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
  -----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
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 spec!
  ial 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 a!
  dditional 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
controver!
  sial discussions.
Thank you.
Wolfgang