[gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
Drafting Team Members:
The discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for
all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies
with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in
responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for
the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to
take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions
during yesterday’s DT call.
Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward
and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of
options to the following two:
1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting
extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure
for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in
attached doc)
a) All RCRC and IOC names
b) All RCRC names but no IOC names
Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of
special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc)
2) RySG Suggested Approach:
a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the
GNSO’s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the
first round of new gTLDs: “Consider possible additional protections for the
RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for
international organizations”
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.
c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the
rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’).
Yesterday’s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following
options:
Option 1: 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).
Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting
extending protection for:
a. All RCRC and IOC names
b. All RCRC names but no IOC names
c. All IOC names but no RCRC names
d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names
f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names
Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting
extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure
for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances:
c. All IOC names but no RCRC names
d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names
f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names
Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal
Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis to
substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or
statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC
names by law.
The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August – all DT members
are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to
removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback
on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in
responding to the GAC proposal.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Brian
Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN
Attachment:
binrPFNJ6nKh1.bin Attachment:
Red Cross & IOC Name#8B834B.doc
|