ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:30:15 -0400

Jeff, I need to point out that the first question is not what I thought it would be, although I don't believe that there is any difference in the final outcome.

I personally do not believe that a PDP is needed on the focused RC/IOC issue FOR THE FIRST ROUND. If the larger IGO issue had not been raised along with its possible PDP, I believe that this DT may well have addressed the first-round 2nd level concerns (as we tried to do at the first level) without a PDP. That outcome might have been to put the names of a reserved list, or to keep them off, but I do believe that we would have made some recommendation.

I do however believe that a PDP on the RC/IOC issue *is* appropriate to address what will happen in any following rounds (at both 1st and 2nd level).

However, we now do have the possibility of a PDP on the IGO issue with the RC/IOC being a subset. What I said at the meeting was that a "moratorium " (by whatever words) ONLY makes sense if the Council does proceed with the larger PDP, and thus the PDP going forward is a pre-condition of the second part of the recommendation.


At 18/09/2012 09:11 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

As discussed on the last call, we now have the following two questions out for a consensus call so that we put these options out for public comment. I know the Board's resolution from last week was sent to the group yesterday and although I encourage everyone to read that resolution and we will discuss it, I do not believe that that resolution should sway our path. Please speak up if you disagree. If anything, the Board's resolution may be in line with one of the recommendations that we, as a group are considering.

1. The first question is whether we all truly believe that a full PDP is necessary on the IOC/Red Cross marks. Most of the group, save Greg S on behalf of the IPC, did believe that a full pdp on this was necessary. In a full pdp, the legal ramifications of protecting these marks at the second level can be more flushed out and exception processes can be developed (if it is determined that these marks should indeed be protected). In addition, many in the group discussed wanting more research done on whether the marks of these organizations merited differential treatment from other international organizations (which is the subject of a soon-to-be released final Issue Report.

2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal put forth by J. Scott and endorsed by the RySG which recommends the following (with some wording tweaks discussed during the last call):

a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC recommendation of September __, 2011 (need to put in exact date) at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. 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. [Note from the Chair: This also would be in line with conservative approach contained in the ICANN Board resolution dated September 14, 2012.]
b.      Communicate to the GAC:
i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international organizations. ii. 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. iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. iv. 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.

Please make sure that you are able to solicit the feedback necessary to respond to the Consensus Call by September 26th. On the GNSO Council call last week we confirmed that we do have the ability to put this proposal out for public comment. In the meantime, I would also like to collect some more of the rationale for recommendation 1 (recommending the PDP) and also for the moratorium in recommendation 2. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy