<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Deadlines in New gTLD Committee Resolution on IGO names
- To: "'GUILHERME ricardo'" <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>, "'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx'" <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>, "'gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Deadlines in New gTLD Committee Resolution on IGO names
- From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:24:22 +0000
Ricardo:
Thank you for the update. That is very good to know . . . and good to know
that ICANN’s failure (unless I missed something) to provide IGOs with a public
and publicized process for interim protection was not fatal for all IGOs.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com
From: GUILHERME ricardo [mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:07 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'; 'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx';
'brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx'; 'gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Deadlines in New gTLD Committee Resolution on IGO
names
Dear All,
This is just to clarify that the IGO coalition has, indeed, submitted ALL the
necessary information for interim protection (including the requested list of
IGO names and acronyms) to the ICANN President & CEO, the GAC AND the Board on
the deadline originally set in New gTLD Committee Resolution 2012.11.26.NG02
(that is, 28 February 2013). Therefore, there should be absolutely no doubt as
to the interest and willingness of IGOs to obtain preventive protection of
their rights and resolve the issue in question within ICANN as soon as
practically possible.
With kind regards,
Ricardo
De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Shatan, Gregory S.
Envoyé : mercredi 6 mars 2013 20:38
À : 'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'; 'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx'; 'brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc : 'gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx'
Objet : Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Deadlines in New gTLD Committee Resolution on IGO
names
This is much more likely a failure of implementation than a failure of interest.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; Brian
Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Deadlines in New gTLD Committee Resolution on IGO
names
If indeed no IGOs have applied for such protection in this round, I find that a
substantive fact that the WG must consider when looking at whether and what
permanent protections are required.
Alan
At 06/03/2013 02:10 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Thanks for this, Brian.
Luckily, my memory did not fail me :-).
Thomas
Am 06.03.2013 um 20:09 schrieb Brian Peck
<brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx> >:
As a follow-up to our discussion at the end of the call on the 26 November
Resolution regarding the protection of IGO names at the second level of the
first round of new gTLDs, the 28 Feb. 2013 deadline was for both the GNSO to
provide advice as well as for IGOs to apply to ICANN to be listed on the
reserved names list. The language is provided below, the entire resolution and
rationale can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.b
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Brian
Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN
RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG02), the Board requests that the GNSO Council advise the
Board by no later than 28 February 2013 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 second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by
inclusion on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant
Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of
the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be protected shall be those
names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under the current existing criteria to
register a domain name in the .int gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain
OR a determination of eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to
ICANN to be listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the
delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013.
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that,
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in
this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|