Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

The GNSO was placed in an awkward situation in this case - the RC/IOC
request was made to the Board and a GAC letter requesting GNSO
consideration was then also sent to the GNSO Council. All this was after
the Board's official resolution in June 2011 that the new gTLD program
would launch in January 2012. As a result, the final Applicant Guidebook
contains the current mechanism of treating certain RC/IOC names (and
their identical matches) as strings ineligible for registration, not as
Reserved Names - so giving rise to some of the options now under
discussion by the GNSO group convened to discuss the issue (e.g.
classifying them as Reserved Names would have different consequences,
and affect the applicability of String Similarity Review).
 
The broader context is, of course, the increasing involvement of the
GAC and how that will change a number of things, from its interactions
with the Board to the role/influence of the GNSO. There is also the
perception that some GAC members are the ones driving the GAC agenda for
the most part. In addition to the RC/IOC issue, the other big issue of
concern to many of us is the GAC's involvement in pushing for compliance
with all the demands that law enforcement authorities have made to the
Registrars.
 
Therefore I don't see what's happening as necessarily pandering to the
GAC but more as part of a broader strategy that the GNSO must come to
grips with, as to how to deal with the GAC on an ongoing basis. One of
the concerns involves how to maintain GNSO authority over gTLD policy
issues without doing so in such a way that the GAC makes it a practice
of doing a "run around" the GNSO and engaging directly with the Board -
possibly in conflict with the GNSO's own policy recommendations. At the
same time, rolling over and caving to every GAC request would be
inappropriate.
 
On this particular issue, I agree largely with Avri - special treatment
of certain strings is against GNSO policy, but that given what's already
happened, the Board's already decided on giving a certain level of
protection to these two organizations in this application round so doing
more at this stage would not only run counter to community-developed
GNSO policy but set an unnecessary precedent for future
multi-stakeholder dialogue.
 
At the same time, I think it's good that the RC/IOC discussion group is
considering the options outlined by Jeff Neuman. It shows good faith on
the part of the GNSO and a real effort to figure out alternative
mechanisms that may be helpful for future application rounds.
 
Cheers
Mary 
 


 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 2/3/2012 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red
Cross Names at Top Level
I totally agree with you Avri - however, there is this idea that we
need to 'please' the GAC, which I totally don't get, but yet again we
appear to be the minority. My understanding is that special provisions
will be created for these bodies- at least in this round of the
applications. I found this also problematic for various reasons: does
this mean that we are creating new policies upon the existing and
established ones, especially when these established ones are considered
'closed' because the applications have already started? Why is the GNSO
placed in such an awkward position? And, why the GAC wants this special
deal? Is it the whole of the GAC?

KK 

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Avri Doria
Sent: Παρασκευή, 3 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 6:15 μμ
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red
Cross Names at Top Level

Hi,

One thing occurs to me as to why there is such pressure to get GNSO to
go along.  This puts the fig-leaf of Multistakeholder decision on yet
another of the decisions where the BoardStaff circumvented the process.

So, Not only do I think this is the wrong thing to do, I think it is
also another slip down the slippery slope of BoardStaff decision making
that circumvents the Policy process for ICANN.

The existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect IOC and IFRC at the
first and even second levels - we do not need to open this barn door.

avri


On 3 Feb 2012, at 08:27, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Both IOC and IFRC have been given an exception for this round of new
gTLDs by direct BoardStaff fiat, though it is against every previous
policy recommendation and on the advice, for some meaning of 'advice',
of just one AC.  I just do not understand why they would be granted
anything further than that.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Feb 2012, at 07:30, Timothe Litt wrote:
> 
>> While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally
better claim to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection
for both.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120203/6ac8803f/attachment-0001.html>