ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:54:02 +0000

The attached suggested amendments to the wording of the call for consensus 
statement was suggested by one RySG member about 30 minutes ago so there was 
not time to get responses from other RySG members.  I am forwarding it to our 
discussion group list so that it will be easier for everyone on the list to 
follow along when I talk about it.


-----Original Message-----
From: regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [REGYCON] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
Importance: High

Dear Chuck and All,

Thanks again for the opportunity to provide our comments; as said on previous 
occasions, we must emphasize our support for the establishment of a 
comprehensive PDP on the protection of the names and acronyms of international 
organizations (including as necessary the IOC/RC cases) that reaches its 
conclusions on a legally-sound basis and in line with binding international 
treaty provisions applicable, at least in the case of the UPU, to IGOs in 

Nevertheless, we are concerned by the fact that the latest draft RySG 
recommendations do not seem to fully reflect the intent behind the consensus 
call and related conclusions quoted in the message below. In particular, the 
previously attached document must, in our view, be consistent with the 
underlying objectives of following a complete PDP process as well as rectifying 
a legally flawed approach related to the granting of special protections to two 
specific organizations.

In the light of the above, we suggest the following amendments as per the 
attached file (see tracked changes). We sincerely hope these can be taken into 
account as a result of recent discussions.

With best regards from Doha,


De : regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Gomes, Chuck Envoyé : mardi 18 
septembre 2012 20:38 À : 
Objet : [REGYCON] FW: Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 
26th Importance : Haute

Please find below the consensus call that Jeff sent out earlier today to the 
IOC/RC Discussion Group.  My understanding is that the RySG already agreed to 
answer 'yes' to both of the consensus questions; if anyone has a different 
view, please let me know.  But there is one thing that we need to respond to in 
Jeff's message; see the last paragraph: "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."  There have been some very good contributions 
to a rationale in the RySG, so I am asking all of you to resend those or add 
new reasons in the next week or less.  I will then compile the input.


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
 On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:11 AM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 


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 

                                          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 


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 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 





Attachment: IOC_RCRC_DT_Recommendations_v0 3_clean Gf.docx
Description: IOC_RCRC_DT_Recommendations_v0 3_clean Gf.docx

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy