From Mary.Wong Wed Aug 1 01:02:49 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:02:49 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer metrics statement Message-ID: <50181DD30200005B00091DB2@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hello again - just following up on my email query (below). Does anyone have a sense of what we should do on this? Wendy, it looks like the WG is prepping a draft report or something - is the NCSG statement (whether in support of yours or rephrasing yours to become a formal statement) done, too late, timely, etc.? Cheers Mary Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. Mary Wong wrote: Hi - from the few messages on the listserv I gather there is support for Wendy's statement either becoming a statement of or followed up by an endorsement from the NCSG. Wendy, can you tell us what if anything we need to do to effectuate this, and who to send it to? Thanks! Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 From wendy Mon Aug 6 22:22:45 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:22:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer metrics statement In-Reply-To: <50181DD30200005B00091DB2@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50181DD30200005B00091DB2@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <50201985.8070903@seltzer.com> Thanks for the continued reminders -- I'll take this back to the WG as a NCSG input. We may need to take it up in Council as well, when the work comes there. --Wendy On 07/31/2012 06:02 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Hello again - just following up on my email query (below). Does anyone have a sense of what we should do on this? Wendy, it looks like the WG is prepping a draft report or something - is the NCSG statement (whether in support of yours or rephrasing yours to become a formal statement) done, too late, timely, etc.? > > Cheers > Mary > > Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. > > Mary Wong wrote: > > > Hi - from the few messages on the listserv I gather there is support for Wendy's statement either becoming a statement of or followed up by an endorsement from the NCSG. > > Wendy, can you tell us what if anything we need to do to effectuate this, and who to send it to? > > Thanks! > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From avri Fri Aug 24 08:25:12 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:25:12 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options References: Message-ID: <99A8A1BB-57B6-48CD-B121-BC201409E6B7@acm.org> I was not able to attend the meeting as i was traveling. This is the current thinking of the DT. I don't think they should have removed Option 1 from the previous set, but the current new option 2, does seem the next best thing to me. At this point I suggest the PC come up with a recommendation given the discussions that have been held on the topic on the NCSG Discuss list. I do not know if Mary was able to attend the meeting - she may have more to add. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Brian Peck > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options > Date: 24 August 2012 03:16:46 GMT+02:00 > To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" > > Drafting Team Members: > > The discussion during yesterday?s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday?s DT call. > > Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: > > 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) > a) All RCRC and IOC names > b) All RCRC names but no IOC names > > Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) > > 2) RySG Suggested Approach: > > a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO?s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: ?Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations? > > b. Provide a rationale for this position > ? Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: > i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. > ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. > iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. > iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. > v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. > vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. > vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. > > c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ?fill in the holes?). > > Yesterday?s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: > > Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). > > Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: > a. All RCRC and IOC names > b. All RCRC names but no IOC names > c. All IOC names but no RCRC names > d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names > e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names > f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names > > Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: > c. All IOC names but no RCRC names > d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names > e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names > f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names > > Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal > > Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel?s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. > > The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August ? all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > > Brian > > Brian Peck > Policy Director > ICANN > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Red Cross & IOC Name#8B834B.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Fri Aug 24 12:26:28 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:26:28 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Message-ID: <503710840200005B00094AA3@smtp.law.unh.edu> I couldn't attend either, unfortunately, due to travel. I agree with Avri's sense of what's going on. There has been some traffic on the DT mailing list that I have to catch up with but that shouldn't stop PC discussions from starting. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Avri Doria " To: "NCSG-Policy" Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Date: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 01:26 >>> "Avri Doria " 2012-08-24T01:26:16.384281 >>> I was not able to attend the meeting as i was traveling. This is the current thinking of the DT. I don't think they should have removed Option 1 from the previous set, but the current new option 2, does seem the next best thing to me. At this point I suggest the PC come up with a recommendation given the discussions that have been held on the topic on the NCSG Discuss list. I do not know if Mary was able to attend the meeting - she may have more to add. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Brian Peck > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options > Date: 24 August 2012 03:16:46 GMT+02:00 > To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" > > Drafting Team Members: > > The discussion during yesterday?s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday?s DT call. > > Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: > > 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) > a) All RCRC and IOC names > b) All RCRC names but no IOC names > > Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) > > 2) RySG Suggested Approach: > > a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO?s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: ?Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations? > > b. Provide a rationale for this position > ? Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: > i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. > ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. > iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. > iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. > v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. > vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. > vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. > > c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ?fill in the holes?). > > Yesterday?s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: > > Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). > > Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: > a. All RCRC and IOC names > b. All RCRC names but no IOC names > c. All IOC names but no RCRC names > d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names > e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names > f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names > > Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: > c. All IOC names but no RCRC names > d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names > e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names > f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names > > Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal > > Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel?s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. > > The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August ? all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > > Brian > > Brian Peck > Policy Director > ICANN > From robin Sat Aug 25 22:39:25 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:39:25 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options In-Reply-To: <99A8A1BB-57B6-48CD-B121-BC201409E6B7@acm.org> References: <99A8A1BB-57B6-48CD-B121-BC201409E6B7@acm.org> Message-ID: What did the group do with the input they got from non-commercial users? If they decided not to incorporate those views into this proposal, did they say why it wouldn't be incorporated? Thanks, Robin On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I was not able to attend the meeting as i was traveling. > > This is the current thinking of the DT. > > I don't think they should have removed Option 1 from the previous > set, but the current new option 2, does seem the next best thing to > me. > > At this point I suggest the PC come up with a recommendation given > the discussions that have been held on the topic on the NCSG > Discuss list. I do not know if Mary was able to attend the meeting > - she may have more to add. > > avri > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Brian Peck >> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of >> Options >> Date: 24 August 2012 03:16:46 GMT+02:00 >> To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" >> >> Drafting Team Members: >> >> The discussion during yesterday?s DT meeting/call resulted in a >> proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their >> respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the >> current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC >> proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/ >> IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining >> options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG >> and further discussions during yesterday?s DT call. >> >> Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for >> moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the >> proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: >> >> 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by >> suggesting extending protection for the following provided there >> is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined >> circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) >> a) All RCRC and IOC names >> b) All RCRC names but no IOC names >> >> Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include >> consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names >> (Current Option #5 in attached doc) >> >> 2) RySG Suggested Approach: >> >> a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) >> is the GNSO?s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC >> and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: ?Consider possible >> additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP >> initiative on the protection of names for international >> organizations? >> >> b. Provide a rationale for this position >> ? Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to >> the following: >> i. >> Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents >> and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see >> special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of >> trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would >> be reserved. >> ii. Lots of >> input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less >> clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. >> iii. National >> laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties >> including variances about what exceptions are made. >> iv. Existing >> rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just >> like other organizations who have rights to names. >> v. Reserving >> the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to >> expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., >> and these become even more problematic from an operational and >> policy perspective. >> vi. There are >> organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights >> to some of the GAC recommended strings. >> vii. The >> complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO >> multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities >> and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed >> before new gTLDs are delegated. >> >> c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns >> expressed in the rationale (i.e., ?fill in the holes?). >> >> Yesterday?s meeting proposed removing from further consideration >> the following options: >> >> Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special >> protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the >> current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD >> Registry Agreement). >> >> Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal >> by suggesting extending protection for: >> a. All RCRC and IOC names >> b. All RCRC names but no IOC names >> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names >> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names >> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names >> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names >> >> Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal >> by suggesting extending protection for the following provided >> there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be- >> defined circumstances: >> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names >> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names >> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names >> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names >> >> Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal >> >> Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel?s office to conduct a legal >> analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of >> treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and >> registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. >> >> The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August ? >> all DT members are requested to consult with their respective >> constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed >> above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two >> alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding >> to the GAC proposal. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> Brian Peck >> Policy Director >> ICANN >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Aug 26 19:48:00 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:48:00 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options In-Reply-To: References: <99A8A1BB-57B6-48CD-B121-BC201409E6B7@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, Hard to say, Neither Mary nor I made the meeting. And I was not as industrious as, e.g. , Chuck was in reporting the SG's position to the DT. Tat is I did not syshtesis and send an update to our previous support of Option 0. But, I think the the Registry sponsored motion of a PDP is compatable with the 'none unless there is a PDP' stance. Though I admit its statement is more inclined toward the belief that the PDP would supporting added protections at the second level - which is of course an unknown. It also does include the notion that the issue should be discussed in tandem with others who are looking for possible second level protection. avri On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:39, Robin Gross wrote: > What did the group do with the input they got from non-commercial users? If they decided not to incorporate those views into this proposal, did they say why it wouldn't be incorporated? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> I was not able to attend the meeting as i was traveling. >> >> This is the current thinking of the DT. >> >> I don't think they should have removed Option 1 from the previous set, but the current new option 2, does seem the next best thing to me. >> >> At this point I suggest the PC come up with a recommendation given the discussions that have been held on the topic on the NCSG Discuss list. I do not know if Mary was able to attend the meeting - she may have more to add. >> >> avri >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Brian Peck >>> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options >>> Date: 24 August 2012 03:16:46 GMT+02:00 >>> To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" >>> >>> Drafting Team Members: >>> >>> The discussion during yesterday?s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday?s DT call. >>> >>> Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: >>> >>> 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) >>> a) All RCRC and IOC names >>> b) All RCRC names but no IOC names >>> >>> Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) >>> >>> 2) RySG Suggested Approach: >>> >>> a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO?s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: ?Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations? >>> >>> b. Provide a rationale for this position >>> ? Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: >>> i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. >>> ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. >>> iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. >>> iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. >>> v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. >>> vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. >>> vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. >>> >>> c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ?fill in the holes?). >>> >>> Yesterday?s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: >>> >>> Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). >>> >>> Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: >>> a. All RCRC and IOC names >>> b. All RCRC names but no IOC names >>> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names >>> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names >>> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names >>> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names >>> >>> Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: >>> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names >>> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names >>> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names >>> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names >>> >>> Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal >>> >>> Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel?s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. >>> >>> The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August ? all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> Brian Peck >>> Policy Director >>> ICANN >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > >