[council] ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

As approved a few minutes ago.


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.