I agree with Robin. If protection is to be made, then there have to be mechanisms that warrant equal rights to all interested parties. So the fairest solution is option 1.<div><br></div><div>Also, this is really a manner to divert us, as Robin points out, from the real important issues about ICANN.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Abraço,</div><div><br></div><div>Nuno Garcia</div><div>Portugal<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 July 2012 18:12, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Weighing in on this issue, personally, my preference is for Option 1 below since no new changes have been shown to be needed. There are already existing mechanisms in place that provide ample opportunity for these groups to protect their legitimate rights. What they want is something more: global exclusive licensing rights - which does not exist anywhere in law, but the culture of ICANN is not one of asking hard questions when big players want special privileges. <div>
<br></div><div>So much of ICANN's energy is being drawn into this single tiny issue, which is really so insignificant in comparison to the big picture issues ICANN is facing (like pressure from govts and altering DNS). And this issue was dealt with about 5 years ago when the Reserve Names Working Group decided these kinds of protections were a rat-hole and recommended against doing what RC/IOC now ask for. So let's not let it waste anymore of the community's energy and attention on these excessive special privileges and let's see how the existing protection mechanisms play out. Indeed there were no "bad applications" in the first round that needed to be stopped based on these group's legitimate rights. So why is it sucking out all of ICANN's energy and attention? And what is the community not facing because we are all focused on RC/IOC's request for special privileges? So I vote for Option 1 below.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin<br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div class="im"><div>On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:</div><br></div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:medium">Brian Peck <<a href="mailto:brian.peck@icann.org" target="_blank">brian.peck@icann.org</a>><br>
</span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:medium"><b>[gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS</b><br>
</span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:medium">18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT<br></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';font-size:medium">"<a href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org</a>><br>
</span></div><br>
<div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please find below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to date for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the RCRC and IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS:<br>
<br>
</span></font><ol><li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement).
</span></font></li><li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all or a subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each organization’s names.
</span></font></li><li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now and wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after the delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or consider lowering costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( i.e., Thomas Rickert’s proposal)
</span></font></li><li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP on the protection of names for international organizations
</span></font></li><li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. <br>
</span></font></li></ol><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything further at this time. Thanks.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Brian <br>
<br>
Brian Peck<br>
Policy Director<br>
ICANN </span></font>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>