[liaison6c] Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee | ICANN

[Edward Morris]

+1


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree that the global participatory democratic experiment that is the
> multistakeholder model as expressed at ICANN is experiencing deep wounds
> and is in critical condition.
>
> But we are not dead and gone yet.   And we should not go out quietly
> without a fight.
>
> It is up to all of those who care about ICANN and the multistakeholder
> governance model to work together to stop the madness as soon as possible.
>
> Perhaps a first step is combine together to request reconsideration of the
> recent Board and CEO actions.
>
> avri
>
> On 2 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
> > Total bye-bye to multiequalstakeholderism? Gosh, I knew long,
> German-like words would not work in English...
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > Carlos A. Afonso
> >
> > Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> escreveu:
> > 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/20121202/162b41b7/attachment-0001.html>