<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-igo-ingo] IOC Objections to SG input form
- To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IOC Objections to SG input form
- From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 23:06:52 +0000
Dear All:
On behalf of the IOC, we would like to provide some commentary on the following
Questions Presented to SO's/AC's/Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies.
4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and
other IGOs and INGOs?
This question should not be asked until the group defines the objective
criteria by which these organizations will be considered for protection. We
believe that the substantive difference between the RCRC/IOC and IGO/INGOs is
legal, and requires somewhat complex legal analysis. Because of that, it would
be more appropriate to ask this question of the community once we, and they
have the benefit of ICANN General Counsel's answers to the Working Group's
legal inquiry, or, at the very least, more information than what is given to
them here.
In addition, this question has been answered by the GAC and by ICANN inside and
outside counsel, and the conclusions and analysis have been presented to the
community. Again, at the very least, the group should present the material
which contains the analysis behind the GAC and Board decisions to provide
context for this question.
7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and the 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?
Again, this question is both premature and inadequately presented. The Working
Group should wait until the ICANN General Counsel responds to its legal
inquiry, and should provide the answer to that question to the groups receiving
this questionnaire before seeking input. Without providing necessary context,
the answers to the questions run the risk of being without weight or
substantive value.
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)?
The IOC has spent over a year answering this question. We would respectfully
ask that this question be presented along with the materials that we submitted
to the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, in order to provide context to the individuals
and groups that are answering this questionnaire. Without this information, the
question presented is unfairly skewed.
Best regards,
Jim
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|