ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-igo-ingo] Update on outstanding consensus recommendations and implementation of adopted recommendations

  • To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Update on outstanding consensus recommendations and implementation of adopted recommendations
  • From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:58:05 +0000

Dear all,

I trust that this email finds you all well. You will recall that on 30 April
2014 the ICANN Board resolved to adopt those of our Working Group¹s
consensus recommendations (as approved by the GNSO Council in November 2013)
that are not inconsistent with GAC advice received:
These concern for the most part the reservation of certain Full Names of the
four categories of organizations (Red Cross, IOC, IGOs and INGOs) at the top
and second level. I write now to update you on the status of the remaining
recommendations as well as the implementation plan for the adopted

On the Remaining Consensus Recommendations:

You will recall that these include recommendations pertaining to the extent
and duration of second level protections for certain names and acronyms,
such as via entry into the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and use of the
TMCH claims notification process. The Board¹s 30 April resolution had stated
an intent on the part of the Board to facilitate discussions to reconcile
differences between the GAC advice and GNSO recommendations. As part of the
Board¹s activity on this matter, its New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) wrote
to the GNSO Council in June, asking that it consider modifying the original
recommendations in accordance with the applicable procedure from the GNSO¹s
Policy Development Process Manual:

The Council is actively discussing the NGPC¹s request, and the topic will
likely again be on the Council¹s agenda for its next meeting on 4 September.
One thing of prime relevance to our WG that you should note here is that,
should the Council decide to propose an amendment to the original consensus
recommendations, it will have to send its proposed modifications to this WG
for our input. The proposal will also have to be put out for public comment
­ all prior to the Council¹s taking a final vote on the matter.

I attach a Briefing Note that ICANN staff prepared for the Council on the
procedure to be followed in such an instance for your reference. We will
also keep you informed of the Council¹s deliberations on this topic.

On Implementing the Adopted Recommendations:

Since the Board¹s 30 April resolution, ICANN policy staff has been
coordinating with our colleagues in the Global Domains Division on the
timing and initiation of the implementation process. Han Chuan Lee from GDD
will be leading the implementation effort, and we have briefed him on the
background to the recommendations.


You¹ll recall that the GNSO Council¹s adoption of our recommendations also
included the approval of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist the
staff with the implementation effort. As IRTs are normally drawn from
participants who have been members of the original WG that developed the
recommendations, we have so far held off on issuing the Call for Volunteers,
pending the Council¹s resolution of the NGPC¹s June request. This is
because, as noted above, a Council decision to propose any amendments would
mean reconvening the original WG, and so we are conscious of the possible
bandwidth issue that might arise were the Call for Volunteers to the IRT be
issued at the same time.


We therefore plan to issue the Call for Volunteers after the Council¹s
decision on the NGPC request ­ either shortly thereafter if no further
action is taken, or toward the close of the period that a reconvened WG will
be given to respond to the Council. In the meantime, Han Chuan and his team
are continuing to work on getting up to speed with the various
recommendations and the status quo regarding interim protections that had
previously been authorized by the ICANN Board. Policy staff will continue to
coordinate with him and will be sure to inform you when the Call for
Volunteers is issued and the implementation effort launched.

On the newly-launched Policy Development Process (PDP) for Curative Rights
Protections for IGOs and INGOs:

Finally, at its meeting in London the GNSO Council approved the initiation
of a new PDP to take up one of our WG¹s recommendations ­ to explore
possible amendments to the UDRP and/or URS (or possibly a separate, narrowly
tailored process modeled on them) that would enable access to and use of
these curative rights protection mechanisms for IGOs and/or INGOs.

This WG has now been formed and an initial meeting held. Given the origin of
this WG in the work of our group, it would be extremely helpful if some of
you were to consider joining this new WG (and a few of you already have,
thank you!). Please let me know if you wish to join the WG ­ you may choose
to do so either as a Member (with full participation rights at meetings and
on the mailing list) or as an Observer (tracking the mailing list and
meeting recordings). Here is the webpage for the new PDP containing links to
the Final Issue Report scoping out the task, the relevant Council
resolutions and the WG Charter:

Thank you all again for the time and effort you put into our original
recommendations. I hope this note has been helpful and look forward to
working with you all again soon if the opportunity arises.


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: Briefing Note on Amending GNSO Policy Via Section 16 PDP Manual.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy