[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
Robin Gross
robin
Sat Aug 25 22:39:25 EEST 2012
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 <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
>>
> <Red Cross & IOC Name#8B834B.doc>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120825/d398d0e7/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list