<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RSEP Process
- To: "'mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RSEP Process
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 03:34:09 +0000
Note that a registry service proposal is not always a lengthy process. It only
becomes lengthy if there is a competition or security-stability issue and in
the case of the latter a registry service evaluation panel (RSEP) would be
initiated. Note also that for a new gTLD a registry is required to pay the
costs of the process.
Chuck
From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:20 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RSEP Process
Team,
As requested by the WG, the following will describe the Registry Services
Evaluation Process (RSEP). It should be understood that this process will only
be invoked under the following conditions:
· The WG were to agree to a recommendation that organizational
identifiers be placed on the Reserved Names List.
· The protected organization seeks registration and use of the
protected name at the second level.
· The protected organization will collaborate with the Registry
Operator of the TLD in which they wish to register the second-level domain name
(The RO will be entity that submits the actual RSEP, not the protected
organization).
· Note 1: that the RSEP will not apply at the top-level. If a protected
organization desired registration at the top-level, a policy process will be
required to have the name removed from the standard Registry Agreement template
and future version of the Applicant Guidebook at the next application window
for new gTLDs.
· Note 2: the RSEP process was not designed to be an exception process
and that organizations seeking protection should understand that the RSEP is a
lengthy and complex process.
If the WG were to proceed with the use of the RSEP as part of its
recommendations for an “exception procedure”, we will require engagement with
the ICANN Registry Services team and further deliberation with the RySG to
ensure the process meets the full requirements.
RSEP Main Page: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep
RSEP Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/policy
RSEP Workflow: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/workflow
RSEP Reconciliation:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/reconciliation
RSEP Prelim Determination of Competition Issues:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/prelim-competition-issues
RSEP Technical Evaluation Panel:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/technical-evaluation-panel
RSEP Implementation Notes:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/implementation-notes
We welcome any other comments by RySG representatives assigned to the WG.
Thank you.
B
Berry Cobb
ICANN
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|