<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19170"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>The GNSO was placed in an awkward situation in this case - the RC/IOC request was made to the Board and a GAC letter requesting GNSO consideration was then also sent to the GNSO Council. All this was after the Board's official resolution in June 2011 that the new gTLD program would launch in January 2012. As a result, the final Applicant Guidebook contains the current mechanism of treating certain RC/IOC names (and their identical matches) as strings ineligible for registration, not as Reserved Names - so giving rise to some of the options now under discussion by the GNSO group convened to discuss the issue (e.g. classifying them as Reserved Names would have different consequences, and affect the applicability of String Similarity Review).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The broader context is, of course, the increasing involvement of the GAC and how that will change a number of things, from its interactions with the Board to the role/influence of the GNSO. There is also the perception that some GAC members are the ones driving the GAC agenda for the most part. In addition to the RC/IOC issue, the other big issue of concern to many of us is the GAC's involvement in pushing for compliance with all the demands that law enforcement authorities have made to the Registrars.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Therefore I don't see what's happening as necessarily pandering to the GAC but more as part of a broader strategy that the GNSO must come to grips with, as to how to deal with the GAC on an ongoing basis. One of the concerns involves how to maintain GNSO authority over gTLD policy issues without doing so in such a way that the GAC makes it a practice of doing a "run around" the GNSO and engaging directly with the Board - possibly in conflict with the GNSO's own policy recommendations. At the same time, rolling over and caving to every GAC request would be inappropriate.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On this particular issue, I agree largely with Avri - special treatment of certain strings is against GNSO policy, but that given what's already happened, the Board's already decided on giving a certain level of protection to these two organizations in this application round so doing more at this stage would not only run counter to community-developed GNSO policy but set an unnecessary precedent for future multi-stakeholder dialogue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the same time, I think it's good that the RC/IOC discussion group is considering the options outlined by Jeff Neuman. It shows good faith on the part of the GNSO and a real effort to figure out alternative mechanisms that may be helpful for future application rounds.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Professor of Law</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP</EM></DIV>
<ADDRESS>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Two White Street</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Concord, NH 03301</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>USA</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Email: <A href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Webpage: <A href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></ADDRESS>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@STRATH.AC.UK></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>2/3/2012 1:26 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I totally agree with you Avri - however, there is this idea that we need to 'please' the GAC, which I totally don't get, but yet again we appear to be the minority. My understanding is that special provisions will be created for these bodies- at least in this round of the applications. I found this also problematic for various reasons: does this mean that we are creating new policies upon the existing and established ones, especially when these established ones are considered 'closed' because the applications have already started? Why is the GNSO placed in such an awkward position? And, why the GAC wants this special deal? Is it the whole of the GAC?<BR><BR>KK <BR><BR>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR><BR>Senior Lecturer,<BR>Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses<BR>Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law<BR>University of Strathclyde,<BR>The Law School,<BR>Graham Hills building, <BR>50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA <BR>UK<BR>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR><A href="http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765">http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765</A><BR>Selected publications: <A href="http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038">http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038</A><BR>Website: www.komaitis.org<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<BR>Sent: Παρασκευή, 3 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 6:15 μμ<BR>To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>One thing occurs to me as to why there is such pressure to get GNSO to go along. This puts the fig-leaf of Multistakeholder decision on yet another of the decisions where the BoardStaff circumvented the process.<BR><BR>So, Not only do I think this is the wrong thing to do, I think it is also another slip down the slippery slope of BoardStaff decision making that circumvents the Policy process for ICANN.<BR><BR>The existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect IOC and IFRC at the first and even second levels - we do not need to open this barn door.<BR><BR>avri<BR><BR><BR>On 3 Feb 2012, at 08:27, Avri Doria wrote:<BR><BR><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> Hi,</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> Both IOC and IFRC have been given an exception for this round of new gTLDs by direct BoardStaff fiat, though it is against every previous policy recommendation and on the advice, for some meaning of 'advice', of just one AC. I just do not understand why they would be granted anything further than that.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> avri</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> On 3 Feb 2012, at 07:30, Timothe Litt wrote:</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"> While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for both.</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> </SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>