ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[npoc-voice]


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

[npoc-voice] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)

  • To: npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [npoc-voice] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
  • From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:28:40 -0500

Dear NPOC Colleagues,

Please review and share your ideas and suggestions. We will aggregate
responses to build an NPOC wide input.

Best, Alain

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO
Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>,
Berry Cobb Mail <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" <
gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>


** **

Dear Alain,****

The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all
gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the NPOC’s input through the attached
 Input Template also in text below:
Thank you.****

Kind regards,****

** **

Glen****

** **

*Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template *

*Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group*

** **

PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY* 15 January 2013* TO THE GNSO
SECRETARIAT (*gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx*), which will forward your
statement to the Working Group.****

** **

The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and
Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly
with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider
recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and
acronyms, hereinafter referred to as “identifiers”, of intergovernmental
organizations (IGO’s) and international non-governmental organizations
(INGO’s) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple
jurisdictions.****

** **

Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and
suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through
this template Statement.  Inserting your response in this form will make it
much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis.
This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of
view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any
information you deem important to inform the Working Group’s deliberations,
even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below.****

** **

For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: ****

   - http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/****
   - http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm****

** **

*Process*

**-        **Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group****

**-        **Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth
below****

**-        **Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below****

** **

*Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to
address:*

As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a
need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and
second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a
minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue
Report: ****

** **

**·        **Quantifying the Entities whose names  may be Considered for
Special Protection ****

**·        **Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under
International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned;****

**·        **Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of
names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned;****

**·        **Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC
and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations.****

** **

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need
for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and
new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, the PDP WG is expected
to:****

** **

**·        **Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special
protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO
organizations at the first and second levels. ****

**·        **Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and
IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make
recommendations on the implementation of such protection.****

**·        **Determine whether the current special protections being
provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial
round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all
gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and
comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate
special protections (if any) for these identifiers.****

** **

*Questions to Consider:*

* *

**1.      **What kinds of entities should be considered for Special
Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)?****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**2.      **What facts or law are you aware of which might form an
objective basis for Special Protections under International
Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the
DNS? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**3.      **Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for
Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**4.      **Do you think there are substantive differences between the
RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**5.      **Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second
level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**6.      **In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of
IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new
gTLDs? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**7.      **Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and
IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be
made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for
appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

**8.      **Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD
program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding
that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? ****

** **

Group View: ****

** **

** **

*For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please
see:*

* *

**·        **Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). ****

**·        **Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue
Report, for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf).
****

**·        **The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those
efforts were combined with this PDP (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm).****

      ****

** **

** **

Glen de Saint Géry ****

GNSO Secretariat ****

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ****

http://gnso.icann.org****

** **



-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Attachment: IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc
Description: MS-Word document



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy