RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: IGO-INGO Proposed Agenda - 28 NOV 2012
Dear Berry, Thank you very much for the proposed agenda and draft documents. In line with previous comments made by the UPU on this topic, we would respectfully request that a number of changes be made to the draft input requests, particularly in order to ensure consistency with the spirit of the WG Charter, as well as to correctly indicate the references/titles used for some of the web pages provided at the end of the document. Therefore, the language to be used in these input requests must at least reflect the mission and scope of the WG to provide policy recommendation on the need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for the names and acronyms of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). In this regard, we note again that this WG is NOT limited to RCRC/IOC names, which are simply a subset of the wider universe of INGOs. Finally, we must also emphasize that the WG is supposed to provide recommendations concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (including as the case may be the IOC and the RCRC for the latter category) on the basis of sound, objective and non-discriminatory criteria, and in conformity with the relevant international and domestic legal principles applicable to IGOs (as already acknowledged by the GAC and its members) and, as the case may be, to certain INGOs. So if the WG wishes to study possible protections for INGOs, it should do so without individualizing organizations contained in that very category (without prejudice, of course, to re-using any valid analyses that may have been performed over the last years on this topic). With kind regards from Berne, Ricardo Guilherme p.s.: Due to time constraints we were only able to edit the draft concerning the Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template; however, the same kinds of changes should also be applied to the SO/AC chair template. De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Berry Cobb Envoyé : mardi 27 novembre 2012 18:41 À : gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx Objet : [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: IGO-INGO Proposed Agenda - 28 NOV 2012 Importance : Haute Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IGO-INGO meeting. Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 28 NOV 2012 @ 15:00 UTC (120 Min): 1. Roll Call 2. Statements of Interest (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs) 3. Status of General Council Request 4. Review Request for Input from SO/AC & SG/C 5. Continue Exploration of Issues defined in Charter (See note from the Chair below) 6. Review IGO-INGO Work Plan 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting Action Items: 1. None yet Note from the IGO-INGO Chair: Dear Colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts with you in preparation of tomorrow's call. First of all, as you know, we have sent the request for a legal assessment to General Counsel, but have not yet received a reply. I have asked staff to contact GC to inquire when we can expect an answer. Hopefully we will be able to factor this into our work plan shortly. In order to expedite our work, I would like to seek your views on structuring the work as described below. Please note that this is all tentative. Hence, I have not used wording such as "potential protections", but only "protections" assuming we all agree that all factors are up for discussion. You might also think that answering some of the questions is premature since the questions only need to be answered if we get that far in the process, but since time is of essence, I would like the group to think about all the things that might be relevant from the very beginning. A. Qualification criteria 1. One vs. multiple types - Shall there be one set of qualification criteria? - Shall there be different sets of criteria for different types of organizations? If so, which? 2. Eligibility criteria - Protection under Treaties / Laws? - Take IOC/RC or another organization as benchmark? B. Eligibility check 1. Who should determine whether qualification criteria are met? - ICANN? - Contractor? - Third party? - Use an existing list? C. Protection(s) - Addition to the reserved names list - Modified reserved names list with exemption process - Modified RPM D. Admission to protections 1. Should all organizations fulfilling the Qualification criteria and who have passed the eligibility check get the protections? a) Per se? b) Upon application? c) Subject to additional criteria? - In case of 1c), what could additional criteria be? o The organization must evidence having been exposed to harm (UDRP cases?, court decisions?, targeted attacks?) o The organization must evidence that it is likely to face harm? Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> @berrycobb Attachment:
IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v0 2 Gf.doc
|