[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