ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
  • From: David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:26:30 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <5792758163D76C4F9C36491EDF2AF7355DC61DEF1B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac2S4SdlZueT8Y72RpOqCn1VOWZMEw==
  • Thread-topic: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616

For your information.

Regards,      David


From: Cherine Chalaby
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:32 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Margie Milam; New gTLD Program Committee
Subject: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red
Crescent and IOC Issues
 

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 GNSO¹s 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 GNSO¹s 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


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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