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

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

Thanks for the quick feedback Avri.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:34 AM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Red Cross/IOC: List of possible approaches
> to respond to GAC proposal
> 
> 
> 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
>