[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
Robin Gross
robin
Sun Dec 9 03:35:12 EET 2012
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: December 7, 2012 12:32:04 PM PST
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail
> <mail at berrycobb.com>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO
> Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
>
>
>
> Dear Robin,
>
> The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers
> in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the NCSG?s input through
> the attached Input Template also in text below:
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template
>
> Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group
>
>
>
> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE
> GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org), which will
> forward your statement to the Working Group.
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested
> stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives,
> to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and
> organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to
> the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter
> referred to as ?identifiers?, of intergovernmental organizations
> (IGO?s) and international non-governmental organizations
> (INGO?s) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under
> multiple jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> Part of the Working Group?s effort will be to incorporate ideas
> and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
> through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this
> form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize
> the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the
> community in understanding the points of view of various
> stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information
> you deem important to inform the Working Group?s deliberations,
> even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below.
>
>
>
> For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace:
>
> http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm
>
>
> Process
>
> - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group /
> Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group
>
> - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group /
> Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set
> forth below
>
> - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder
> Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below
>
>
>
> Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been
> tasked to address:
>
> As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there
> is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at
> the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP
> WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as
> detailed in the Final Issue Report:
>
>
>
> ? Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered
> for Special Protection
>
> ? Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under
> International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned;
>
> ? Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection
> of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned;
>
> ? Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the
> RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations.
>
>
>
> Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is
> a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all
> existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers,
> the PDP WG is expected to:
>
>
>
> ? Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special
> protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO
> organizations at the first and second levels.
>
> ? Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC
> and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new
> gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such
> protection.
>
> ? Determine whether the current special protections being
> provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the
> initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and
> IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing
> protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop
> specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if
> any) for these identifiers.
>
>
>
> Questions to Consider:
>
>
>
> 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special
> Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and
> new)?
>
> Group View:
>
> 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an
> objective basis for Special Protections under International
> Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs
> and the DNS?
>
> Group View:
>
> 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for
> Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers?
>
> Group View:
>
> 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the
> RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs?
>
> Group View:
>
> 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and
> second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made?
>
> Group View:
>
> 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers
> of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial
> round of new gTLDs?
>
> Group View:
>
> 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC
> and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for
> new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific
> recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you
> have?
>
> Group View:
>
> 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD
> program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs
> (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs
> and INGOs)?
>
> Group View:
>
>
> For further background information on the WG?s activities to date,
> please see:
>
>
>
> ? Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web
> page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-
> names.htm).
>
> ? Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue
> Report, for insight into the current practices and issues
> experienced (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-
> names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf).
>
> ? The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how
> those efforts were combined with this PDP (see http://
> gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
?
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/20121208/d843f6e3/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 58368 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121208/d843f6e3/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121208/d843f6e3/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list