RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 13 FEB 2013

["Roache-Turner, David" <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri, and working group colleagues,

On behalf of the OECD, UPU, WIPO and 40 IGOs in coalition:

We would vigorously oppose the making of any such recommendation by this 
working group to delay introduction of the protection of IGO names and acronyms 
which is already provided for in the Board's resolution.

It may be that there is some misunderstanding regarding the interim nature of 
the protection which is contemplated in that resolution (acknowledging the GAC 
Toronto advice on interim protection), and expressly based on an approach which 
contemplates the possible lifting of such a protection at a subsequent time.

In fact, its principal resolutions acknowledge the continuing nature of GNSO 
work on policy after the Feb 28 deadline, and (as was also indicated at the 
outset of these working group deliberations) also request GNSO Council advice, 
by Feb 28, if it is aware of any concern such as with the global public 
interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take 
into account in making its decision about whether to include certain second 
level protection for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion on a reserve 
list.

Even if it would somehow be regarded as within the mandate of this working 
group to advise the GNSO council on these particular matters (and let it be 
recalled that this was discussed earlier in the group to the effect that the 
issue of the Board's resolution was a matter for the Council and not the 
working group), we see absolutely no evidence of concern with respect to the 
global public interest (indeed, quite the contrary), with respect to the 
security or stability of the DNS, or otherwise on the record before this 
working group, which would justify the issuance of such a recommendation.  
Rather, and on the contrary, we see a very compelling legal and public policy 
interest in the Board proceeding with the protection contemplated in its 
resolution.  We do not believe that the Board, in proceeding to implement this 
resolution, would in any way preclude this working group from continuing with 
its policy deliberations in due course.

However, we would have a very real concern that the Board's failure to timely 
proceed with the granting of interim protection as contemplated in that 
resolution may come at a very real cost to IGOs, particularly in the context of 
ICANN's planned expansion of the DNS.

In sum, we do not believe this working group should be recommending any 
deferral in implementation of the Board's resolution on interim protection of 
IGO names and acronyms, the conservative purpose of which is precisely to 
enable this working group to continue with its policy deliberations without 
undue concern that an appropriate interim protection measure would not be in 
place.  As we have all seen, the matters under discussion in the present group 
are complex, and the realistic prospects for completion of the group's work 
seem rather more distant at present that the stated timeframe for ICANN's DNS 
expansion plans would comfortably accommodate.  Again, that is why the 
protection contemplated in the resolution is envisaged to be of an interim 
nature.

In conclusion, we strongly believe that the appropriate course is for the Board 
to proceed with the implementation of its resolution from the date 
contemplated, for the GNSO Council to consider any advice it may have in that 
context, and for this working group to continue its policy deliberations in 
accordance with its mandate.

With best regards,

David, Ricardo and Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: mercredi, 13. février 2013 14:25
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 13 FEB 2013


Hi,

I have one comment about the agenda.

As I understand it, the issue of Special Protections is on the GNSO agenda this 
week.  This is the last GNSO meeting before the Board's deadline for a response 
on these protections.

Does this WG have any input for the GNSO.

I think we should ask the Board's indulgence for us to complete the work and 
request that they not make yet another preemptory decision on further 
protections.  While any applicants are still striving to get into the root 
ASAP, it si obvious that it is not yet the last minute and the Board has time.  
the Board does not need to make any emergency decisions about reserved names 
until just before it decides to approve a new gTLD.  And it is not on the 
precipice of such a decision.

I recommend we ask them not to create any further expectations of entitlement 
as they did for RCRC and IOC.  I recommend we ask them to give the policy 
process the time it needs to do the work.  If they need an emergency provision 
before approving the first new gTLD so be it.  But it is not yet that time.

This recommendation is consistent with NCSG positions on the Rule of PDP, the 
issue of the Board's tendency to go outside of the PDP based on outside 
pressures and out position on the creation of new reserved name policy 
privilege.

avri


On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:53, Berry Cobb wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IGO-INGO PDP Working Group 
> meeting.
>
>
> Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 13 FEB 2013 @ 19:00 UTC (120 Min):
> 1. Roll Call / SOI Update
> 2. Status of General Council Request
> 3. Review of SG&C Input from NCSG
> 4. NOTP- Harm Evaluation Discussion & Next Steps
> - Domain Registration evaluation
> - Survey contents and scope of participants
> 5. Further Define potential protection mechanisms
> 6. Review IGO-INGO Work Plan / Beijing Face-to-face Session??
> 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting (20 FEB 2013 @ 17:00 UTC (120 MIN))
>
>
> Thank you.  B
>
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> @berrycobb
>
>




World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message 
may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If 
you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender 
and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail 
attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.