[PC-NCSG] [o] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 4 Sept 2013

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

FYI i sent in that form as our current position.

avri

On 3 Sep 2013, at 16:34, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> so i have heard little since my last email on the topic (attached below)
> 
> I have edited the chart and replaced all of the agree with "Support with opposition"
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-130903.doc>
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>>  
>> Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday?s meeting.  Note, that responses to the Consensus Call are due today at 23:59. 
>>  
>> Proposed Agenda ? IGO-INGO WG Meeting ? 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
>> 1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI?s
>> 2.       Status of Consensus Call
>> 3.       Review draft Final Report (recommendations, impact on incumbent gTLDs)
>> 4.       Review Work Plan
>> 5.       Confirm next meeting, 11 September 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>>  
> 
> 
> Previous email
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Informal midway update on NCSG discussions on 'consensus' points.
>> Date: 28 August 2013 15:48:55 EDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> An update on the positions inside the NCSG.  
>> 
>> Or at least my view of it - NCSG, like ALAC, lists are all open archive so anyone can make their own evaluation.
>> 
>> The NCSG is still deliberating.
>> 
>> On some topics, we have a range of views ranging from: 
>> 
>> a - No Specal Privileges  For anyone  to 
>>  Let a restricted set of IGO, International Organizations and INGOs use Objection procedures and RPMs
>> 
>> b - Let INGOs use trademarks like everyone else  to 
>>     Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks
>> 
>> c  - IGO/INGO pay like everyone else to use RPMs to
>>    Giving them a break given their not-for-profit status 
>> 
>> The things I think we are agreed on, though I am still checking - BCC'ing this message to our open discussion list. -
>> 
>> I - In all issues we tend toward a fair and equivalent standard of treatment.  This is not just a throw away excuse as some may have characterized, but rather is an important driving principle in NCSG considerations.
>> 
>> II - We do not support blocking of names at either the first or second level.  That is we do not support expanding the reserved name list in any way.
>> 
>> III - We do not support giving those on reserved name lists (if they are expanded) a special privilege of exception from the reserved name list.
>> 
>> IV - We should not decide any policy issue based on the degree to which someone has lobbied the GAC and gotten them to issue Advice.   We should consider the Advice as one among many issues but not be ruled by it. 
>> 
>> I have not yet broached the issue of:
>> 
>> - Do Incumbents have to obey the same rules as new gTLDs, and what implications does this have for the renewal and transfer of current registration of names that may be have been added to the reserved list.  Is there a 'grandmother' rule?
>> 
>> 
>> I hope to have completed NCSG consensus opinion by next week's meeting.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Writing as Alternate Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee in the midst of trying to determine our position.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg