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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry --

Thanks for this set of questions.  Initial RrSG reply in line below.

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)

For future rounds, one would have to assume from your question.  No firm 
opinion is put forth by our SG yet, but the initial reaction is no, a case for 
such standing has not been sufficiently made.

> 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?

RrSG does not support fee reduction for objections.

> 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?

Need more context on the call for this.

>  
> 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
>  
>