Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to respond to GAC proposal

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Apologies for missing the meeting (hopefully they were made at the time).

I can agree to most of this but would like it noted that there is some strong 
objection to doing  "even without a PDP" in point c.  While the Board can 
countervail GNSO policy without a process as long as they have a supermajority, 
I do not think there is any by-laws basis for the GNSO so recommending.

avri

On 8 Aug 2012, at 22:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> There has been a lot of discussion about the various IOC/RC Discussion Group 
> approaches in the RySG the past several weeks including in the last two 
> teleconference meetings.  In the meeting today, a somewhat new approach 
> gained quite a bit of traction and I will try to describe it here:
> a.      Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 1 is the GNSO’s 
> starting position for second-level names in the first round of new gTLDs: 
> “Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the 
> RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level 
> reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).”
> b.      Provide a rationale for this position
> ·        Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the 
> following:
>                                                     i.     Reserving names 
> for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited 
> numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC 
> did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for 
> which names would be reserved.
>                                                    ii.     Lots of input has 
> been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of 
> organizations could be sufficiently narrow.
>                                                   iii.     National laws vary 
> regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances 
> about what exceptions are made.
>                                                   iv.     Existing rights 
> protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other 
> organizations who have rights to names.
>                                                    v.     Reserving the 
> finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that 
> list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more 
> problematic from an operational and policy perspective.
>                                                   vi.     There are 
> organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of 
> the GAC recommended strings.
>                                                 vii.     The complexities of 
> this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up 
> PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not 
> be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.
> ·        The work of the IOC/RC discussion group should be reviewed to 
> identify other reasons.
> ·        The RySG is ready and willing to contribute to better refining the 
> rational if there is support for this approach.
> c.      Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the 
> rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’).
> Many in the RySG would not be disappointed if, even without a PDP, the above 
> resulted in a GNSO recommendation of Discussion Group Approach 3.a:  “Develop 
> recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending 
> protection for all of the GAC recommended IOC and RCRC names provided there 
> is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances.” 
>  But we believe that justification for doing it based on current information 
> has too many weaknesses at this time.
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Peck
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:07 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to 
> respond to GAC proposal
>  
> Please find attached an updated, corrected version of the document provided 
> below reflecting Avri’s earlier message regarding some initial input from the 
> NCSG.
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:58:16 -0700
> To: "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches to respond to GAC proposal
> 
> To all DT members:
> 
> Please find attached a document that was prepared for and discussed during 
> today’s IOC/RCRC Drafting Team call.  This document briefly summarizes a list 
> of possible approaches that have been proposed to date within the DT for 
> moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and IOC 
> names at the second level in new gTLDS, as well as some initial comments 
> received regarding this list of approaches which was sent to the group on 18 
> July.  
> 
> Please not that this current draft is what was prepared and posted for 
> today’s call and is being provided so that you can go back to your individual 
> groups and solicit comments on which approach(es) your group would support as 
> a way for the DT to move forward.  This draft does not include comments that 
> were raised during the call, we ask that any comments representing your 
> individual groups be shared and sent via email to the list.  
> 
> This is a fluid document and we will be periodically updating and 
> distributing it with any submitted comments on the individual proposed 
> approaches prior to the next scheduled call on 15 August.  Thanks.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian
> 
> Brian Peck
> Policy Director
> ICANN 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message