RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Worksheet v0.3

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following are my personal comments regarding the following notes in the 
legend:

"(*1) Modified Reserved Names List
Basic parameters:
- designations will be included in the list upon application with ICANN after 
eligibility of the organization has been verified by ICANN or an appropriate 
third party
- the protected organization can apply for a string on the list
- third parties can apply for a string on the list; they are deemed an eligible 
party when legitimate use is either evidenced to ICANN or with a Public 
Interest Commitment (Specification 11 to the Registry Agreement) by    which 
the legitimate use is bindingly agreed upon. In case of violations of the 
Public Interest Commitment, the RRDRP could be used or ICANN could be entitled 
to terminate the Registry Agreement.
- In case there is a contention set between a protected organization and an 
eligible third party, ICANN's string contention procedures should apply"

Regarding the 3rd bullet:

*        It seems to me that in the case of trademarks and, if the TMCH is 
expanded as necessary to include any IGOs and INGOs, also applicable IGOs & 
INGOs, evidence of eligibility could be evidenced via the TMCH.

*        Note that the RRDRP only applies to community-based gTLDs so it its 
use in this regard would be limited.  If a PIC spec was used to fulfill this 
and if the PIC Spec is implemented as currently proposed by ICANN Staff, 
violations would be handled via a yet-to-be defined third party arbitrator.

*        I think we should be careful about suggesting when 'ICANN could be 
entitled to terminate the Registry Agreement'; one of the problems historically 
is that enforcement options were limited to termination of the agreement; that 
extreme solution resulted in it being used extremely rarely, whereas if there 
were progressive steps required before termination, compliance enforcement 
would likely be more effective.

"(*5)
- Identifyer Clearing House"

*        Is the idea here to create another entity like the TMCH?  If so, that 
doesn't seem like a realistic idea in my opinion.

*        Modifying the TMCH to accommodate applicable IGOs or INGOs seems much 
more doable to me.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:05 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Worksheet v0.3

Team,

Attached is version 0.3 of the Protections Matrix.  A few cells were updated, 
so I wanted to send the latest version out to everyone.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb