RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Some important questions

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Thomas.

Chuck

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Some important questions

Chuck,
thanks for your questions. Let me try an answer to both, but WG members please 
do chime in.

Regarding the use of the ECOSOC lists, some important questions were asked by 
one of the RySG members:

1.       Was it discussed how frequently this 2 lists change?  Is it an 
obligation for the registry operator to check for updates?

2.
I do not know how frequently the list changes, but unless a WG members knows, 
we will try to get first hand information on that. As far as the second 
question is concerned, there should be no obligation for the registry operator 
to check for updates. That would only lead to friction and duplicate work as 
some registry operators will implement changes sooner than others as they 
monitor in shorter intervals, which would not be helpful. In my view, this 
should be done centrally by ICANN and notifications should be pushed out to all 
registry operators. Although I cannot influcence how ICANN would handle this, I 
guess this would be the most (cost)-effective.



    Was it discussed how changes would be accounted for, added  or deleted, the 
process for this?

It is my understanding that the list would be taken on an as is basis, i.e. 
there is no process required for changes, such as additions or deletions. In my 
view, additions should be treated as other designations that are already on the 
list, unless they are already registered. In case they are registered, the 
rules that we are now discussing in a separate discussion for existing TLDs 
might apply. Where an organization is deleted from the list, the corresponding 
domain names can be registered without any limitations prescribed by ICANN. 
Whether a registry operator wishes to use special launch procedures for that 
would be up to the registry operator's discretion.

This is just my personal view, which might help stimulate a discussion.

Thomas



In my opinion, these are questions we will need to consider if there is enough 
WG support for any of the INGO recommendations.

In the meantime, if anyone has any thoughts about these issues, I would like to 
hear them.

Chuck
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender 
immediately and delete this message immediately.”