[] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
Carl Smith
lectriclou at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat Sep 15 20:00:43 CEST 2012
Thank you Avri.
Lou
On 9/15/2012 1:21 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Thanks Avri,
>
> I think we should stick to our position. Don't put any special-case
> changes as new requirements on existing applicants.
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 09/15/2012 10:44 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I forgot another point I have argued is that of course any registry, incumbent or applicant, is free to offer the IFRC and IOC to voluntarily give them the second level protection they are asking for (something beyond what the GAC is asking for). I even support the DT mentioning this in their response.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2012, at 08:58, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As you know the DT basically went beyond the original point that the NCSG seemed to be supporting (no decision from the Policy Committee as far as I know, thus I use the word 'seems') that:
>>>
>>> "No further protections be granted at the second level to IOC or the IFRC and its local RCs unless and until a PDP makes such a recommendation."
>>>
>>> We were essentially alone supporting this position.
>>>
>>> The proposal below is currently a version of what the committee is proposing to put forward. While the last DT meeting got a bit confusing, I beleive we are now:
>>>
>>> - Getting SG/C feedback on the plan
>>> - And then putting it out for a proper community review
>>>
>>>
>>> I argued against this for several reasons:
>>>
>>> - I do not see it as a compromise that includes my PoV as a member of the group.
>>>
>>> - I beleive that starting out by giving the IOC/IFRC what the GAC asked for will give them, and their supporters, very little reasons to compromise in a PDP. Once you already have most of what you asked for, why take a chance on losing that. At the very least this becomes the new status quo that can't be removed. It is a de-facto decision that effectively changes the status quo.
>>>
>>> - It takes no regard of others who are making similar claims: IGOs and other organizations. So it is either unfair or it opens the flood gates, and it is only a PDP that can authoritatively make this sort of recommendation.
>>>
>>> (Well except that the Board can act on GAC advice,
>>> or even its own whim, anytime it wants to.
>>> There is nothing in the By-laws that forces the Board
>>> to get a G-council recommendation before
>>> making such a decision - the by-laws only speak about
>>> how the Board must react to a G-council recommendation
>>> when one is made.
>>> It is only Board largess and community pressure that
>>> prevents the Board from making arbitrary decisions that
>>> circumvent the bottom-up process.
>>> And as is obvious, from the decision the Board made on top level,
>>> and now the second level, Board adherence to
>>> a bottom-up process only extends so far in light of
>>> GAC pressure.)
>>>
>>> - I also questioned the implication of such an extension to reserved names on the incumbents. There was a suggestion that they should call it a 'moratorium' on new gTLD, which would attempt to avoid both the 'PDP as the only acceptable process' issue and the incumbent issue. I personally think that any rules imposed on new gTLDs must be put on the incumbents as well or should not be placed at all
>>>
>>> (bet that doesn't go too far)
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think they are asking for comments on the proposal. There is a chance they are going to amend the statement first. I am just not sure.
>>>
>>> I have no idea if the latest Board resolution changes anything. Though it does tip in the direction of what seems to be the prevailing near consensus in the DT.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I missed two meetings and was not able to fight a lot for our PoV. Not sure it would have made any difference - I have been mostly in a minority of one - though they have tolerated me and my PoV and have let me make my points.
>>>
>>> As I am traveling the next 2 weeks, I am not positive I will make it to the next meetings - thought I will try if it is at all possible.
>>>
>>> The recording of that meeting is at:
>>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120912-en.mp3
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>>>> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
>>>> Date: 5 September 2012 12:08:31 EDT
>>>> To: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>, "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late.
>>>>
>>>> The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position.
>>>>
>>>> We support the J. Scott compromise:
>>>> 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue.
>>>> 2. Communicate to the GAC:
>>>> a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names
>>>> b. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.)
>>>> c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position.
>>>> d. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process.
>>>> 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>> If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM
>>>> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>>>> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
>>>>
>>>> Drafting Team Members:
>>>>
>>>> The discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday’s DT call.
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc)
>>>> a) All RCRC and IOC names
>>>> b) All RCRC names but no IOC names
>>>>
>>>> Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc)
>>>>
>>>> 2) RySG Suggested Approach:
>>>>
>>>> a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO’s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: “Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations”
>>>>
>>>> b. Provide a rationale for this position
>>>> · Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following:
>>>> i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved.
>>>> ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow.
>>>> iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made.
>>>> iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names.
>>>> v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective.
>>>> vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings.
>>>> vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.
>>>>
>>>> c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., ‘fill in the holes’).
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday’s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options:
>>>>
>>>> Option 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).
>>>>
>>>> Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for:
>>>> a. All RCRC and IOC names
>>>> b. All RCRC names but no IOC names
>>>> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names
>>>> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
>>>> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names
>>>> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names
>>>>
>>>> Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances:
>>>> c. All IOC names but no RCRC names
>>>> d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
>>>> e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names
>>>> f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names
>>>>
>>>> Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal
>>>>
>>>> Option 6: 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.
>>>>
>>>> The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August – all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> Brian Peck
>>>> Policy Director
>>>> ICANN
>>>>
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list