Re: [council] RE: Adopted Resolutions from 4 June 2013 - Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,
thanks for your e-mail and the additional information. I will certainly convey 
that message to the members of the WG.

Regards,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 07.06.2013 um 08:16 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> Hello All,
> 
> One of piece of the annex that relates to the GAC recommendations around the 
> International Olympic Committee and Red Cross names is worth reviewing:
> 
> "GAC Advice:   The GAC advises the ICANN Board to amend the provisions in the 
> new gTLD Registry Agreement pertaining to the IOC/RCRC names to confirm that 
> the protections will be made permanent prior to the delegation of any new 
> gTLDs.
> 
> Board response:   The new gTLD Program Committee accepts the GAC advice.   
> The proposed final version of the Registry Agreement posted for public 
> comment on 29 April 2013 includes protection for an indefinite duration for 
> IOC/RCRC names.   Specification 5 of this version of the Registry Agreement 
> includes a list of names (provided by the IOC and RCRC Movement) that "shall 
> be withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator at the second 
> level within the TLD."
> 
> The protection was added pursuant to a new gTLD Program Committee resolution 
> to maintain these protections "until such time as a policy is adopted that 
> may require further action"  (204.11.26.NG03).   The resolution recognized 
> the GNSO's initiation of an expedited PDP.   Until such time as the GNSO 
> approves recommendations in the PDP and the Board adopts them, the NGPC's 
> resolution protecting IOC/RCRC names will remain in place.   Should the GNSO 
> submit any recommendations on this topic, the NGPC will confer with the GAC 
> prior to taking action on any such recommendations."
> 
> 
> I think the key message here is that it is possible for the GNSO to develop a 
> policy that offers an alternative to a particular implementation of the new 
> gTLD program - including the IOC/RCRC names and the trademark clearinghouse.  
>   The policy recommendation would then go through the normal community 
> process where advisory committees can provide advice to the Board prior to 
> accepting a recommendation, and the Board can refer such advice to the GNSO 
> for review.
> 
> If members of the GNSO community  feel strongly that a particular 
> implementation is wrong or could be significantly improved - then the GNSO 
> Council should consider how to efficiently conduct a policy process to 
> provide formal policy recommendations in that area.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
>