RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

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

Thanks Jeff.  Well said.

It is a lot easier to release names later if the PDP results in policy 
recommendations that do not support reservation than it is to reserve them 
after registrations have already occurred.

Chuck

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Thomas.  I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer 
this as I was on the registries call.  The registries felt like the operational 
issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with 
other reserved names in the past).  We believe that the PDP process will 
address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the 
reservations permanent).  So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point 
no exceptions.  [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now.  
Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying 
discussions...that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the 
registration pool in the first place pending the pdp]

The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of 
a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP.  On 
balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names 
until the outcome of the PDP.  Note this does not mean that we as registries 
believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of 
practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues.  Stated yet another way, 
the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being 
completed.

I hope that makes sense.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

Chuck,
thank you for your input.

I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would 
please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names 
so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism?
I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of 
the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of 
operational issues with such approach.

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:

I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting 
today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been 
rescheduled once.  If it ends early, I will join the call late.

The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today.  Here 
is our position.

We support the J. Scott compromise:
1.      Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the 
second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering 
IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names.  This would provide a back 
stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument 
that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue.
2.      Communicate to the GAC:
a.      That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to 
cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names
b.      A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing 
out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult 
to adequately do so otherwise.  (Note that the RySG will provide some 
recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.)
c.      That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on 
this position.
d.      That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the 
work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process.

3.      In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the 
rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to 
the GNSO Council.
If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off 
his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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