Fwd: [liaison6c] Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee | ICANN
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Sun Dec 2 05:31:39 CET 2012
More "off-road" policy making. It would seem the board-staff has
abandoned the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model for policy
development processes.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: November 30, 2012 2:20:23 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD
> Program Committee | ICANN
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-
> gtld-26nov12-en.htm
>
> Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee
>
> 26 November 2012
> Main Agenda:
> Prioritization of New gTLD Applications
> IGO Name Protection
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012. 11.26.NG02
> RCRC IOC Protection
> Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03
>
>
> 1. Main Agenda:
>
> 1. Prioritization of New gTLD Applications
>
> No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program engaged in a discussion
> on the prioritization of New gTLD applications, including the
> prioritization of IDNs, and the progress towards the prioritization
> draw scheduled to be held on 17 December 2012. The New gTLD Program
> Committee directed the President and CEO to draft a paper exploring
> the possibility of, as well as the risks and potential mitigation
> efforts, including a geographical region round robin process within
> the prioritization draw. The President and CEO noted that it will
> be important to assure the impeccable operation of the
> prioritization draw, and considerations of the risks inherent in
> incorporating a round robin process within the draw must be of
> primary consideration.
>
> 2. IGO Name Protection
>
> Whereas, the GAC has provided advice to the Board in its Toronto
> Communiqué, stating that "in the public interest, implementation of
> such protection [of names and acronyms of IGOs against
> inappropriate registration] at the second level must be
> accomplished prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs, and in
> future rounds of gTLDs, at the second and top level."
>
> Whereas, the GAC advice referenced the current criteria for
> registration under the .int top level domain (which are cited in
> the Applicant Guidebook as a basis for an IGO to file a legal
> rights objection) as a starting basis for protecting IGO names and
> acronyms in all new gTLDs, and advised that "this list of IGOs
> should be approved for interim protection through a moratorium
> against third-party registration prior to the delegation of any new
> gTLDs" pending further work on specific implementation measures.
>
> Whereas, the GNSO is actively engaged in policy discussion
> regarding top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO
> names, and has initiated a PDP on the broader issue of whether to
> protect these names of certain international organizations in all
> gTLDS.
>
> Whereas, there is currently no policy to reserve or impose a
> moratorium on the registration by third parties of the names and
> acronyms of IGOs meeting the .int criteria in place for the second
> level of the current round of new gTLDs.
>
> Whereas, the protections for the second level, if they are provided
> and if they are to be effective, should be in place before the
> delegation of the first new gTLDs.
>
> Whereas, as previously announced, the Board favors a conservative
> approach, in that restrictions on second-level registration can be
> lifted at a later time..
>
> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG01), the Board requests that the GNSO
> continue its work on policy recommendations on top and second-level
> protections for certain IGO and INGO names on an expedited basis.
>
> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG02), the Board requests that the GNSO
> Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is
> aware of any concern such as with the global public interest or the
> security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into
> account in making its decision about whether to include second
> level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion
> on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant
> Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the
> first round of the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be
> protected shall be those names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under
> the current existing criteria to register a domain name in the .int
> gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain OR a determination of
> eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to ICANN to be
> listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the
> delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013.
>
> Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012.11.26.NG02
>
> ICANN has received requests for additional protections for the
> names and acronyms of IGOs, including from the UN, from the RCRC
> and IOC, to prevent the registration of such names and acronyms by
> third parties at the second level. These are similar issues and
> should be considered at the same time. ICANN committed to
> considering the recommendations made for enhancing second-level
> protections for rights holders in an earlier public comment forum
> and in recent discussions at the Toronto Meeting and international
> fora such as the IGF Meeting.
>
> In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD Program
> Committee can remain accountable to all parts of its community,
> while taking action that is reasonable based on the following
> precedent and rationale:
>
> 1. The Board set a precedent for this request regarding IGO
> names with its resolution adopted on 13 September, which requested
> that the GNSO consider a similar proposed solution for the first
> round of new gTLDs to protect the RCRC and IOC names at the second
> level.
>
> 2. For historical reasons, the .int top level domain includes
> registrations from entities that are not IGOs or those that would
> not qualify for registration in .int under the current eligibility
> criteria. As the GAC advice focused on current eligibility criteria
> as one of its suggested starting points for the creation of a list,
> it would be overbroad to extend the moratorium to all current .int
> registries.
>
> In addition, there are entities that, while eligible for
> registration in .int, choose to not register in .int. Registration
> in the .int should not be a mandatory requirement. It is for that
> reason that the requirements for protection do not require
> registration in .int, only a demonstration that the entity would
> qualify under the current eligibility criteria for .int. Therefore,
> the resolution is only as broad as necessary, limiting a list to
> those names and acronyms meeting the current eligibility criteria
> for .int and who apply to ICANN for inclusion in the moratorium.
> This also allows those eligible IGOs that wish to register second
> level names within new gTLDs the opportunity to not participate in
> the moratorium.
>
> 3. As reflected in the underlying rationale for the 13 September
> 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-
> new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm) resolution with respect to Red Cross/Red
> Crescent and International Olympic Committee names, the Board
> favors a conservative approach, and that restrictions on second-
> level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions
> cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered.
> That same rationale applies for IGO names and acronyms at the
> second-level of the first round of new gTLDs.
>
> 4. Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect
> to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the New gTLD Program Committee
> believes that the appropriate course is for the Board to ultimately
> leave these issues in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies.
> The Committee appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an
> expedited PDP to develop recommendations to provide any necessary
> additional protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second-
> levels in all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that
> discussion in the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the
> results of these policy discussions.
>
> This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the
> security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This action is also
> not expected to have a significant impact on financial or other
> resources of ICANN.
>
> 3. RCRC IOC Protection
>
> Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee on 13 September 2012
> requested that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than
> 31 January 2013 if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with
> the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS,
> that the Board should take into account in making its decision
> about whether to include second level protections for the IOC and
> Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the
> Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List
> applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round
> of the New gTLD Program.
>
> Whereas, the new gTLD Committee acknowledges that the GNSO Council
> has recently approved an expedited PDP to develop policy
> recommendations to protect the names and acronyms of IGOs and
> certain INGOs – including the RCRC and IOC, in all gTLDs.
>
> Whereas, although the GNSO Council's 15 November motion did not
> pass due to a procedural technicality, the GNSO Council will vote
> again on a motion at its 20 December meeting to adopt the IOC/RC
> Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact
> match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section
> 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, pending the outcome of the
> recently launched PDP.
>
> RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG03), in light of these upcoming policy
> discussions to take place in the PDP involving the protection of
> International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations,
> restrictions for registration of RCRC and IOC names for new gTLDs
> at the second level will be in place until such time as a policy is
> adopted that may require further action.
>
> Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03
>
> Given the Committee's 13 September resolution as well as the high-
> level and community-wide attention on this issue, it is important
> for the Committee to indicate that the protections it has
> recommended for the RCRC and IOC names at the second level of the
> first round of new gTLDs will be adopted until a policy is
> developed. In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD
> Program Committee can take action that is reasonable based on the
> following rationale:
>
> 1. Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect
> to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the new gTLD Committee believes
> that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues
> in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. The Committee
> appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an expedited PDP
> to develop recommendations to provide any necessary additional
> protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second-levels in
> all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in
> the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the results of these
> policy discussions.
>
> 2. The Committee has been apprised that the motion to grant
> temporary protections to the RCRC and the IOC has been resubmitted
> to the GNSO Council and, having looked at the issue with voting on
> same resolution when it was considered on 15 November 2012, the
> Committee expects the Council to adopt the recommendation to
> provide such special protection for the RCRC and IOC names at its
> meeting on 20 December 2012. Recognizing the likelihood that the
> GNSO Council's motion will pass, the Committee believes that it is
> appropriate to adopt this resolution at the same time as
> consideration of the IGO issue, as a temporary measure, while the
> GNSO Council proceeds with the expedited PDP.
>
> 3. In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD
> Program Committee can reassure the impacted stakeholders in the
> community, acknowledge and encourage the continuing work of the
> GNSO Council, and take an action consistent with its 13 September
> 2012 resolution.
>
> This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the
> security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes
> of this work may result in positive impacts. This action is also
> not expected to have an impact on financial or other resources of
> ICANN.
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121201/cd9b5eb2/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list