<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
- To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:02:52 +0100
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1359543807; x=1360407807; bh=Yt8pN5LBsvfA 6S/KPDlPOS+cTEmz4Mx5gzZIDBhxFVc=; b=2pfp/W6zfirH9wqTTZV6gYdFNdYZ dvIwPg++/zzDeJPlj+vYzamoV/A8iLYpOlq3JEmTyVMVpQxXucBf8AdjSpdJg6re qDoQywA6QlTFphlQKadqXY8gJa4xCMwgueeWArNQ3UMjtlGNDNhajPQZtC+eNtxI qV+w7iy+RP4QRa4=
- In-reply-to: <560B87A6C4C20F4999D73431D61B4847082AAC4C25@SJUSEVS10.steptoe.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <560B87A6C4C20F4999D73431D61B4847082AAC4C25@SJUSEVS10.steptoe.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
Dear Brian,
oThe rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers
"whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second
level" of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC
advice with respect to international legal norms and public policy.
In other words, whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of
the instant PDP is to challenge, or at least question, not only the
GAC's proposed criteria for protection, but also the GAC's
determination to advance protection for the specific two organizations
that meet that criteria.
Under this scope, the PDP would not only examine the need for special
protections in new gTLDs but also under the existing ones. One may argue
whether this is necessary or distracting (see the next point), but I do
not see it as directly challenging the GAC advice.
I personally would have preferred a more direct reference to the level
of protections required. After all, the term "special protections" is
not particularly conclusive as to what these protections are actually
supposed to be, and also the GAC has been rather opaque on what kind of
protections they envision. It is the duty of the GNSO to fill the GAC
advice with life and I agree that the language describing the scope of
the PDP should have been more clear on that.
oPlease bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections
for Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO
acronyms */_for new gTLDs only_/*. I cannot recall anyone ever
recommending or requesting such protection in all existing gTLDs as
well. Thus, the Council's response to the GAC needs to fully explain
any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision to broaden the
scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include existing gTLDs.
While I also cannot recall any such request or recommendation, I fail to
see why new gTLD should be treated differently from existing gTLDs. If
it is determined that a form of special protection is necessary, why
would such a need not also apply to existing TLDs?
oThe Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that
the GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red
Cross is "to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for
pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographical use) should apply in
the domain name context---particularly at the second level and in both
new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately our position as a
Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from the
current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and
Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow.
Would it not be the job of the PDP to make exactly that determination as
part of their deliberations?
oThe proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad,
subjective and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent
policy versus implementation discussion framework published by ICANN
policy staff. I believe it is better to simply admit that there is no
bright line test and recognize that this issue is ripe for further
discussion within the ICANN community.
I would not call it inappropriate just because there is no clear line in
the sand.
Best,
Volker Greimann
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|