[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee on 10 April 2012

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

I am curious as to whether the committee plans to make a decision on the change 
we requested to allow for extended evaluation for strings that are rejected for 
string confusion.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD
> Program Committee on 10 April 2012
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Just passing this down as an FYI.  Board did not make any changes to
> applicant guidebook.  No rationale given at this time.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:11 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD Program
> Committee on 10 April 2012
> 
> 
> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-
> gtld-10apr12-en.htm
> 
> Covering:
> 
>  1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
> 
>  2. GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International
> Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 10 April 2012
> 
> 
> 
> Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program
> Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not
> conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was
> granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations set
> forth by law, the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's
> Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for any
> and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The
> full scope of the Committee's authority is set forth in its charter at
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld.
> 
> 
>  1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
> 
> 
> Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections for
> certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights in
> particular (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-
> 20jun11-en.htm);
> 
> Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD
> Program with these elements
> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-
> en.htm);
> 
> Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects of
> the program have been actively communicated;
> 
> Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to submit
> gTLD applications for defensive purposes to protect established legal
> rights;
> 
> Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to
> seek input on the sources of this perception and how it could be
> addressed (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-
> defensive-applications-06feb12-en.htm);
> 
> Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting in
> Costa Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions raised
> during the comment period, and additional suggestions with
> participation from the community
> (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711);
> 
> Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of
> established legal rights,;
> 
> Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and the
> discussion in the public workshop was transcribed;
> 
> Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark
> protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the
> registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that
> cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the
> registration of top-level domain names;
> 
> Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the
> application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in place
> to mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, following
> the initial application round;
> 
> Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about
> awareness of the protections available and that renewed efforts should
> be undertaken to broadly communicate those protections to rights
> holders;
> 
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the
> community for its participation in the discussion of this issue.
> 
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is not
> directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive
> gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee directs
> staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive
> registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to consider
> whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level
> should be undertaken;
> 
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff
> to continue implementing targeted communications about the processes
> used and protections available in the New gTLD Program.
> 
> 
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG1-2012.04.10.NG3
> 
> [Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]
> 
> 
> 
> 2. GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International
> Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
> 
> 
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee acknowledges
> receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending certain protections
> to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the International Olympic Committee
> names at the top level.
> 
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses to
> not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time.
> 
> 
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5
> 
> [Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]
> 
>