[council] Public Comment - Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun12-en.htm
Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization 
Names in New gTLDs
Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

4 June 2012

Comment Close:

25 June 2012

Close Time (UTC):

23:59

Public Comment 
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm>

Reply Open:

26 June 2012

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:prelim-protection-io-names@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply Close:

16 July 2012

View Comments 
Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/prelim-protection-io-names/>

Close Time (UTC):

23:59

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

ICANN Policy Department

Categories/Tags:

Policy Processes

Purpose (Brief):

ICANN staff is seeking community input on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on 
the Protection of International Organization Names in new 
gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 566 KB].

Current Status:

This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and 
dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report.

Next Steps:

The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback 
submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to 
the GNSO Council for its consideration.

Staff Contact:

Margie Milam

Email:

policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Request%20for%20Preliminary%20GNSO%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Protection%20of%20International%20Organization%20Names%20in%20New%20gTLDS%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose


ICANN staff is seeking community input on this Preliminary Issue Report which 
is being published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an issue 
report as a required preliminary step before a PDP may be commenced on the 
topic of whether ICANN should provide additional protections to the names of 
certain international organizations at the first and second levels for names 
introduced through the New gTLD Program. In its motion requesting this Issue 
Report, the GNSO Council specified that the Issue Report should: 1) Define the 
type of organizations that should be evaluated in any related PDP for any such 
special protection at the top and second level; and 2) Describe how the PDP 
could be structured to analyze whether ICANN should adopt policies to protect 
such organizations at the top and second level.

In addition to other elements of this Issue Report, the ICANN community is 
encouraged as part of the public comment forum to comment on whether a PDP - if 
initiated, should be focused on additional protections for: (i) only 
international organizations that are not-for-profit AND are afforded unique 
protections under international treaties or national laws in multiple 
jurisdictions, and/or (ii) all international governmental organizations.

Section II: Background


Issues related to whether certain international organizations such as 
Intergovernmental Organizations ("IGOs"), the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement 
("RCRC") and the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") should receive special 
protection for their names at the top level and second level in new gTLDs have 
been raised throughout the development of the New gTLD program.

The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC 
on whether special protections should be afforded to the RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. 
Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the Board authorized the President 
and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program "which includes the following 
elements: "the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant 
Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-7-en.htm>, subject 
to the revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: ...(b) 
incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross 
and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, 
until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public 
interest....."

In addition, the ICANN Board, on 11 March 2012, in response to a letter from 
the OECD and other IGOs seeking that ICANN provide protections similar to those 
afforded to the RCRC and IOC and a pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names 
at the second level, formally requested that the GNSO Council and the GAC 
provide policy advice on the IGO's request.

With regard to providing special protections for the RCRC and IOC names, during 
the Dakar Meeting on 27 October 2011, the GNSO Council convened an informal 
drafting team to focus on the narrower issue of whether the RCRC and the IOC 
should receive special protections beyond those currently afforded to them in 
the Applicant Guidebook. This drafting team, known as the IOC-RC Drafting Team, 
was convened to respond to the Board's 20 June 2011 Singapore resolution with 
regard to the protection of names of the RCRC and the IOC during the first 
round of applications (the "Singapore resolution) and in particular, to a 
subsequent GAC proposal to permanently protect the RCRC and IOC names at both 
the top and second levels.

The IOC-RC Drafting Team produced a set of recommendations that were published 
for public comment on 2 Mar 2012, and were subsequently modified during the 
March 2012 Costa Rica ICANN Meeting before adoption by the GNSO Council at its 
special meeting on 26 March 2012. These recommendations, which were forwarded 
to the ICANN Board for consideration, are described in greater detail on Annex 
3 to this Report.

At its 10 April 2012 meeting the ICANN Board's New gTLD Program Committee 
considered the GNSO recommendations but decided not to change the Applicant 
Guidebook. In its rationale for this resolution, the Committee observed that 
although "the GNSO's recommendations were well taken, the Committee opted for 
preserving the status quo. As protections already exist, when balanced with the 
accountability and operational issues posed by changing the Applicant Guidebook 
at that time, the Committee noted that "the public interest will be better 
served by maintaining the status quo.... Nothing in the Committee's action or 
this rationale is intended to preclude the consideration of the GNSO 
recommendations for future rounds of applications within the New gTLD Program."

The Preliminary Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should consider 
whether or not to initiate a PDP as an approach to develop any additional 
policy advice in response to Board requests on the topic of whether to create 
additional protections to only certain types of international organizations in 
new gTLDs.

Section III: Document and Resource Links


Preliminary Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 566 KB]

Report of Public Comments on Proposal to Protect International Red Cross and 
International Olympic Committee Names at the Top Level in New 
gTLDS<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-ioc-rcrc-proposal-08may12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 284 KB]

The ICANN Board Resolution from the Singapore 
Meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>

The GAC letter concerning the protection of IOC/RCRC 
names<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and+Red+Cross+Sep.+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1317031625914>
 [PDF, 1.05 MB]

The Questions & Answers concerning the protection of IOC/RCRC 
names<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30343723/IOC+AND+IRC+RESERVATIONS+IN+NEW+GTLDS+QUESTIONS+AND-ANSWERS.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1320967688000>
 [PDF, 229 KB]

The IGO letter to the 
Board<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-13dec11-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 157 KB]

The Board letter to the GNSO and GAC on the IGO 
issue<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/beckstrom-to-igo-counsels-11mar12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 222 KB]

The GNSO Council response to the Board's letter on the IGO 
issue<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-to-board-igo-names-26mar12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 105 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information

Links to relevant background documents and resources are provided in the 
Preliminary Issue Report




(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to 
be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making 
that takes place once this period lapses.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org