Opinions? Fwd: [] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS

[Marc Perkel]

+1

On 7/22/2012 10:12 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Weighing in on this issue, personally, my preference is for Option 1 
> below since no new changes have been shown to be needed.  There are 
> already existing mechanisms in place that provide ample opportunity 
> for these groups to protect their legitimate rights.  What they want 
> is something more: global exclusive licensing rights - which does not 
> exist anywhere in law, but the culture of ICANN is not one of asking 
> hard questions when big players want special privileges.
>
> So much of ICANN's energy is being drawn into this single tiny issue, 
> which is really so insignificant in comparison to the big picture 
> issues ICANN is facing (like pressure from govts and altering DNS). 
>  And this issue was dealt with about 5 years ago when the Reserve 
> Names Working Group decided these kinds of protections were a rat-hole 
> and recommended against doing what RC/IOC now ask for.  So let's not 
> let it waste anymore of the community's energy and attention on these 
> excessive special privileges and let's see how the existing protection 
> mechanisms play out.  Indeed there were no "bad applications" in the 
> first round that needed to be stopped based on these group's 
> legitimate rights.  So why is it sucking out all of ICANN's energy and 
> attention?  And what is the community not facing because we are all 
> focused on RC/IOC's request for special privileges?  So I vote for 
> Option 1 below.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org <mailto:brian.peck at icann.org>>
>>> *Subject: **[gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red 
>>> Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS*
>>> *Date: *18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT
>>> *To: *"gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>" 
>>> <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>
>>>
>>> List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS
>>> In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please 
>>> find below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to 
>>> date for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect 
>>> the RCRC and IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS:
>>>
>>>  1. Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special
>>>     protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the
>>>     current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD
>>>     Registry Agreement).
>>>  2. Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as
>>>     extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all
>>>     or a subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each
>>>     organization’s names.
>>>  3. Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now and
>>>     wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after
>>>     the delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or
>>>     consider lowering costs for each organization to utilize RPMs (
>>>     i.e., Thomas Rickert’s proposal)
>>>  4. Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as
>>>     part of a broader PDP on the protection of names for
>>>     international organizations
>>>  5. Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis
>>>     to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty
>>>     law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars
>>>     to protect IOC and RCRC names by law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything 
>>> further at this time.  Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> Brian Peck
>>> Policy Director
>>> ICANN
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120722/270badce/attachment-0001.html>