April 10 Board meeting

[Robin Gross]

The IOC/RC proposal was a valuable lesson about how dominant players in the GNSO will try to intimidate NCSG members into going along with bad proposals by claims that it would be irresponsible for NCSG to be the lone voice against a policy proposal.  Thankfully Rafik was willing to bear the brunt of the GNSO's anger, giving the board and the community the needed time to slow down the train enough for some thought and community input to turn this bad policy proposal around.  

As Milton pointed out, in the end, the board agreed with NCSG's position on this issue -- despite the threats from the proposal's drafters that "it would be the downfall of the GNSO" to not give the GAC what it wants and wild claims like "people in Pakistan will die if the GNSO does not act now to do this", etc.  Rhetoric levels were high in Costa Rica and the pressure placed on our NCSG GNSO Councilors was enormous.  

Dominant members in the GNSO still expect NCSG to go along with their proposals in order to get along within ICANN.  That didn't happen this time and will continue to happen less and less as NCSG moves forward and we insist our views be taken into account in the development of ICANN policy.

Robin


On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote:

> On Apr 15, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Milton L Mueller 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.
> 
> When we asked for a deferral on the RC/IoC motion we were told how horrific our decision was, including that the RC would be unable to do its vital work, and that it was a slap in the face to the governments and the downfall of the Council and the policy process.  So where's the outrage now?  Curious…
> 
> Bill 
> 
>>  
>> 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 athttp://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
>>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120416/e0585754/attachment-0001.html>