Re: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Impressive. Thanks for doing this so quickly and efficiently Steve.

Stéphane

Sent from my/Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 1 juil. 2013 à 05:16, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Responding to request from Marilyn, in preparation for tomorrow's BC call.
> 
> Attached is a matrix showing GAC's Beijing Advice, BC positions, and what 
> ICANN's Board has said so far.
> 
> For reference:
> The GAC Beijing Advice is here.
> BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here. 
> Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here.
> Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is  here.
> 
> --
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:30 AM
> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list 
> <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC 
> Advice from Beijing
> 
> Thanks, Steve. 
> 
> Perhaps we want to sort of do a check list of our own, on what the Board 
> accepted from GAC advice, that was consistent, or partly consistent with our 
> own strong and ongoing input to the Board, public forums, public comments, 
> and GAC. 
> 
> From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice 
> from Beijing
> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:08:33 +0000
> 
> ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC 
> advice. (link)
> 
> Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC 
> safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted 
> consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice.
> 
> Safeguards for all gTLDs
> Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy 
> checks. 
> 
> GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for 
> safeguard violations.  ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a 
> basis for suspension".  But that's not the same as actually requiring 
> Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found.
> 
> Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs
> ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions 
> that are useful to protect consumers and users.     
> 
> That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a 
> single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue 
> with the GAC.
> 
> ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of 
> the same TLD.  
> The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, 
> but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice.  I don't think 
> this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion 
> between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD.   Moreover, this is an 
> awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new 
> applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), 
> and com(s). 
> 
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
> 
> 
> <Interim Scorecard on GAC Beijing Advice.docx>