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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan



At 18/09/2012 09:11 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> All,
>
> 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.
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> 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