[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

[Mary.Wong at 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 <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org>
To: "NCSG-Policy" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
Date: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 01:26




>>> "Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org> 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 <brian.peck at icann.org>
> 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" <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
>