[gnso-iocrc-dt] Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names 18 April 2012
- To: "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names 18 April 2012
- From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:38:09 -0700
Brian Peck:IOC/RC Drafting Team Call 18 April 2012
Nathalie Peregrine:Avri Doria has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:As has Alan Greenberg.
Alan Greenberg:Or trying to - elevator music now...
Alan Greenberg:on now
Steve DelBianco:the Board's new gTLD committee adopted this resolution:
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;
Steve DelBianco:Isn't THAT justification to continue our work on scond-level
Mary Wong:Steve, that's why I raised it - is it for this group or the Council
to determine whether it's this group or some other group?
Chuck Gomes:Let's ask the Council for direction.
Alan Greenberg:Speaker list????
Mary Wong:I agree, Chuck and Jeff - I can send the note today and cc you all.
Mary Wong:@JScott, thanks - that's why I raised the question.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Kiran = Jim (sorry for the confusion)
avri:I dusagree that a PDPD cannot have results by the time of the first new
gTLDs goinng into the root..
avri:bad typing - apologies
avri:bte, since KK is leaving the NCSG, I am proposing I take his spot in
this group for so long as it remains open.
Alan Greenberg:@avri, I beleive that the absolute min time for a PDP is about
9 months. And that assumes there is no controversy or disagreement.
avri:I beleive a PDP is the ONLY way to make policy on reserved names
Jeff Neuman:Avri is correct once the contracts have been signed
Jeff Neuman:prior to any signing of the contract, not sure a formal PDP is
avri:Jeff: intersting legal question - perhaps that should be taken to the
Jeff Neuman:Avri - none of the changes up to now in the new gTLD registry
agreements have gone through a PDP, including all the names currently on the
reserved names list
Steve DelBianco:Great point, Chuck. Many of teh 2nd level RPMs would be
helpful even after Sunrise. (TM notices, for example)
avri:Certainly events in London show that the IOC has trademark clout
jscottevans:Steve: How do we know? RPMs have never been used and we know
nothing about URS at this stage. Do you know something we don't?
Steve DelBianco:JScott: here's what we know: TM Claims notices will be more
effective if they persist beyond 60 days, and if they work from near-matches
instead of only exact matches.
jscottevans:are they going to do either of those things?
Steve DelBianco:and any names taken back thru URS / UDRP could be transfered
or blocked so the same problem doesn't come right back
jscottevans:URS and UDRP costs don't scale. That's Jim's point.
Steve DelBianco:Only if we (GNSO) adopt it as consesnsu policy or the Board
directs it in the Guidebook.
jscottevans:Okay, so that is all "pie in the sky."
jscottevans:as currently drafted Claims Notice ends in 60-days and only
covers exact matches.
Steve DelBianco:My point is that we should document the risks and
(in)adequacy of present RPMs, in order to show whether further RPM improvements
are needed ASAP
Mary Wong:@steve, isn't the problem with that the fact that the RPMs we're
talking about are really new?
Kiran Malancharuvil:can we make the attachment a bit larger?
jscottevans:I spent 3 months of my life documenting and arguing the
inadequacies of the original, non-existent RPMs. worked diligently to brain
storm and draft the original IRT Recommendations only to see them eviserated by
jscottevans:In short, I am not sure the ICANN Board cares.
Chuck Gomes:I wasn't just talking about RPMs for new gTLDs; if a consensus
policy to establish a modified reserved names list was approved after some new
gTLDs are delegated, contracts would be amended to include that list and
whatever procedures are associated with that list.
jscottevans:@Chuck. I think that is the exact purpose of this whole
Mary Wong:@Everyone, I apologize - I have to leave the call but will catch up
via the transcript/MP3/mailing list. Cheers and thanks.
Mary Wong:Ciao - see you at INTA???