April 10 Board meeting

[McTim]

Milton,

I agree this is good news, but not entirely unexpected, given the
integrity of the Members of the Board.

Perhaps the Board thought that by tossing the issue to the community,
enough of us would tell them to
"do the right thing" which would give them political cover to tell the
GAC to sod off.

I was surprised however that so many other long time members of the
community were willing to "Mind The GAC".


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I am surprised there is not more discussion of these resolutions on this
> list.
>
> The good news is that in both cases, the board’s action coincides with NCSG
> positions, and in the case of the second resolution, I think our work played
> a role in making the decision.
>
>
>
> My analysis of the board resolutions here:
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/14/when-no-action-is-the-wisest-action-icann-does-good/
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin
> Gross
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:21 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] 1. Defensive Applications for New
> gTLDs 2.GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International
> Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: April 13, 2012 6:44:14 AM PDT
> To: "liaison6c at gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] 1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs 2.GNSO
> Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International Olympic
> Committee Names in New gTLDs
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
>
> 10 April 2012
>
> Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program
> Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not
> conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was granted
> all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations set forth by law,
> the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's Conflicts of Interest
> Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may
> arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The full scope of the Committee's
> authority is set forth in its charter at
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld.
>
> 1.     Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
>
> Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections for
> certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights in particular
> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);
>
> Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD Program
> with these elements
> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);
>
> Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects of the
> program have been actively communicated;
>
> Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to submit gTLD
> applications for defensive purposes to protect established legal rights;
>
> Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to seek
> input on the sources of this perception and how it could be addressed
> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-defensive-applications-06feb12-en.htm);
>
> Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting in Costa
> Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions raised during the
> comment period, and additional suggestions with participation from the
> community (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711);
>
> Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of established
> legal rights,;
>
> Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and the
> discussion in the public workshop was transcribed;
>
> Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark
> protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the
> registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that
> cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the registration
> of top-level domain names;
>
> Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the
> application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in place to
> mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, following the
> initial application round;
>
> Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about awareness of
> the protections available and that renewed efforts should be undertaken to
> broadly communicate those protections to rights holders;
>
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the
> community for its participation in the discussion of this issue.
>
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is not
> directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive gTLD
> applications at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to
> provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the
> second level and requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on
> defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken;
>
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to
> continue implementing targeted communications about the processes used and
> protections available in the New gTLD Program.
>
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG1-2012.04.10.NG3
>
> [Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]
>
> 2.     GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International
> Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
>
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee acknowledges
> receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending certain protections to the
> Red Cross/Red Crescent and the International Olympic Committee names at the
> top level.
>
> Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses to not
> change the Applicant Guidebook at this time.
>
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5
>
> [Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>