<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections
- To: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections
- From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:38:47 -0400
Again, on behalf of Chuck Gomes and myself, please see comments below
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849
From: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:35 PM
To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections
Hi All,
Judging by the responses and the Chair’s assessment thus far, it appears that
there is not much support for Fee Waivers at the various levels of the
protection mechanisms discussed, with the exception at the top-level for future
applications of gTLDs. We ask that the WG stakeholders respond to the
following questions in the context that an organization’s identifiers would not
be placed on a reserved names list or listed in the Applicant Guidebook as
ineligible for registration:
1. Is there support for IGO, IOC, and RCRC to have equivalent standing
similar to the GAC and ALAC for filing objections against top-level
applications for gTLDs? (Note that there is no charge of a filing fee for that
GAC and ALAC)
DWM: No
2. If there is no support for equivalent standing, is there support for a
fee reduction for filing objections to new gTLD applications by IGO, IOC, and
RCRC?
DWM: We prefer a modified reserved names list, and are not convinced that
applicants should subsidize objection fees.
3. If there is no support for either concept, what are your thoughts
about the organizations seeking protection to collaborate with the GAC for gTLD
applications where an objection is being considered?
DWM: This doesn’t seem feasible. The GAC takes too long to respond.
We will discuss this topic at our 8 May 2013 conference call.
Thank you for your input. B
Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|