ALAC statement

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

At its meeting held March 15, The At-Large Advisory Committee unanimously
approved (with one abstention) the following statement regarding this issue:

*ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN THE
GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE:*

The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN Board, its
staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain names related to
the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to the poor precedents these
activities set forward both on substance and on process:

*On substance,* we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red Cross and
the International Olympic Committee protections not available to other
rights holders. Substantial objection procedures were put in place
regarding the gTLD program, well capable of addressing all concerns about
confusion and misuse. ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which
has raised the concerns about these names, indeed has its own hard-won
objection mechanisms in place.

Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe specifically
that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related names is against
the global public interest. We note that many legitimate uses of the word
“olympic” and its derivatives are used for airlines, cameras, restaurants,
paint, and numerous businesses around the world with no connection to the
Olympic athletic movement or the IOC. These businesses are not currently
seen to be confusing with the olympic movement, and we believe that
needless restriction on these names -- beyond what already exists -- is
publicly harmful.

*On process,* it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a
hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden as a
result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept that the
GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was performing its role
according to its members’ wishes. However, the ICANN Board’s imposition of
these wishes upon the community without prior consultation demonstrates
numerous flaws and poor precedents:

   - It is our understanding that the scope given the GNSO Drafting Team,
   in debating this matter, precluded it from rejecting outright the proposed
   changes because the Board had already forced the matter. The Drafting Team
   was left in a position of refining -- and indeed legitimizing -- a Board
   directive that many community members thought to be objectionable outright;
   - The overriding of broad consensus-based policy based on a bilateral
   negotiation calls into question ICANN’s publicly expressed commitment to
   maintaining (and indeed strengthening) its “multi-stakeholder model”. How
   can ICANN's multi-stakeholder model claims be trusted when the community
   consensus can be so easily overridden due to perceived political expediency?
   - The late date of this activity, changing the Applicant Guidebook so
   long after its “final” version was published, reduces public confidence and
   destabilizes the application process
   - Why is this only about generic names? That is, why would “co.redcross”
   be subject to pre-restriction but “redcross.co” not? The uneven and
   unequal application of such a demand is the source of both instability and
   confusion. The debate on such policy should not be limited to the GNSO,
   since it is an issue affecting all domain names.

We note many of our concerns about this process have been expressed in Kurt
Pritz’s March 2 letter to the GNSO Drafting Team. We believe, though, that
rather than simply requesting further details and refinement, staff's
concerns call into question the value of the entire initiative.

In view of the above, the *ALAC specifically advises and requests* the
ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and
Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest. This
matter should be reviewed with the purpose of giving the ICANN Board
guidance on the global public interest related to making changes to
previously-approved multi-stakeholder consensus.  ALAC further advises the
ICANN Board to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As
the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users
around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility
of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user
benefit, but has the effect of creating new potential sources of public
confusion and instability.
The URL of this statement is available at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/On+Reserved+Names+for+the+Red+Cross+and+IOC

-----
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56