ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

  • To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:12:57 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <5249AEE8.8000609@key-systems.net>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac6+KkFDoBngH6qdSImnhOCCSjtyfw==
  • Thread-topic: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Dear All,

Please find below a response from Cyrus Namazi in relation to the paragraph
referred to by Volker.

Best regards,


In response to community input, the TMCH Requirements were revised to allow
registry operators the ability to submit applications to conduct launch
programs.  In response to the large number of Geo TLDs who voiced similar
concerns, the IPC publicly stated that it would be willing to work with Geo
TLDs to develop mutually acceptable language for Geo TLD launch programs.
We viewed this proposal as a way for community members to work collectively
to propose to ICANN a possible solution for an issue specifically affecting
intellectual property rights-holders and Geo TLDs.  Any such proposal will
be subject to ICANN's review and ICANN has expressly stated that any such
proposal may be subject to public comment in which other interested
community members may participate. This is captured in Section 4.5.3.

As an alternative, applicants can unilaterally apply for a program exemption
under another provision of the requirements (Section 4.5.2).  IPC was added
to facilitate the discussion; not a condition to that requirement.

From:  Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Monday 30 September 2013 19:03
To:  Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document

Dear fellow councillors,

in the last week ICANN has released a final draft version of the TMCH RPM
Requirements, which contains in section 4.5.3 a paragraph that I find to be

4.5.3If registry operators that indicated in their applications for their
TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name (³Geo TLDs²) and
representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency recommend to ICANN
the creation of a registration program (...)

 Apparently, ICANN staff is considering to give one constituency special
consideration. While the subject at hand is probably closest to the specific
interests of that one constituency, giving any one constituency or any part
thereof an effective veto over a subject matter that still has relevance to
the other constituencies and stakeholder groups is highly problematic and
contrary to the spirit of the multi-stakeholder principle. ICANN staff
should consider all stakeholders equally and not cater to a single
stakeholder group. It would be different if such a recommendation came from
the GNSO council itself.
 Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time, so
referencing one in such a process description may cause problems down the
 I feel this topic needs to be raised on the council level as this is only
the most recent example of ICANN staff acting unilaterally in favoring one
interest over others.

Best regards,

Volker Greimann 

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

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