Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry --

Like David and the RySG, the RrSG has yet to formally discuss these ideas.  But 
here's initial reaction below. 

Thanks --

Mason


On May 3, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Berry Cobb wrote:

> 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)
        
                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?

                No.  Contracted party fees and applicant fees already subsidize 
most of ICANN's activity.  We wouldn't favor adding to that burden.  And an 
updated reserved names list would be a better approach, as David says.

> 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?

                I'm unclear as to what this means specifically.  

>  
> 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
> @berrycobb
>  
>