ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Re: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues

  • To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Re: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:53:54 +0200
  • Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, New gTLD Program Committee <board-gtlds@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <CC78D446.19709%cherine.chalaby@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CC78D446.19709%cherine.chalaby@icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Cherine,

I am copying the Council for their information.

Best,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +22 (0)1 48 01 83 61


Le 14 sept. 2012 à 21:32, Cherine Chalaby a écrit :

> Dear Stéphane,
> I wanted to reach out to you and the GNSO Council to let you know about an 
> issue of interest to the GNSO that the New gTLD Program Committee addressed 
> this week: the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC names.  The 
> Committee passed a resolution yesterday requesting that the GNSO consider a 
> proposed solution for the first round to protect at the second level the 
> names of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, consistent with the GAC advice to 
> the Board.
> We have been apprised of, and appreciate, the significant work currently 
> underway by the GNSO’s IOC/RC Drafting Team, and the potential PDP under 
> consideration.  We crafted the resolution in a way that recognises that GNSO 
> work is ongoing.  The resolution and the rationale will be posted next Monday.
> The Committee adopted this resolution now, rather than wait until Toronto, to 
> provide sufficient time for the GNSO to develop its views on this request 
> taking into account the timeline for the first round.   It is important that 
> this issue is resolved early next year so that additional protections, if 
> they are adopted, are in place for the first round.  As a result, the 
> Committee is seeking the GNSO’s response by January 31, 2013.
> We look forward to receiving the GNSO's response and are available to discuss 
> this issue in further detail in Toronto.    
> Sincerely,
> Cherine Chalaby



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>