RES: [ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

["Jaime - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support both Osvaldo´s suggestion and Maikey?s remarks.

 

Jaime Wagner - Direção

 <mailto:manuela@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx          

Geral: (51) 3233 3551 Ramal  17 | Celular: (51) 8126 0916

Skype: jaime_wagner

Msn:

Site:  <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 <http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/powerself> Facebook |
<http://www.twitter.com/powerself> Twitter |
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/2131855?trk=tyah> Linkedin

PowerTasks:  <http://www.powerself.com.br/PowerTasks/power_tasks.php> App
PowerSelf para iPhone

 

De: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome
de Anthony Harris
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2012 17:05
Para: Novoa, Osvaldo; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Anthony Harris
Assunto: Re: [ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed
Narrowing of Options

 

I support Osvaldo's suggestion. It seems the most

reasonable approach.

 

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Novoa, Osvaldo <mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  

To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:13 PM

Subject: [ispcp] RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed
Narrowing of Options

 

All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT,
but due to health problems I wasn?t able to participate in the lasts
meeting.  I am participating right now.

I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott
proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP
is ready, not allowing any exception.  In the meantime a PDP would be
develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent
but also other IGO and related names.

Thank you and best regards,

Osvaldo

 


  _____  


De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Neuman, Jeff
Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16
Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck
CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of
Options

 

Thomas.  I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer
this as I was on the registries call.  The registries felt like the
operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has
been done with other reserved names in the past).  We believe that the PDP
process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to
make the reservations permanent).  So, until the full pdp, the feeling was
at this point no exceptions.  [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just
easier for now.  Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the
underlying discussions?that defeats the point of keeping the names out of
the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp]


The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result
of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP.
On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those
names until the outcome of the PDP.  Note this does not mean that we as
registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter
of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues.  Stated yet another
way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP
being completed.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of
Options

 

Chuck,

thank you for your input. 

 

I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would
please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the
names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism?


I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome
of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a
multitude of operational issues with such approach. 

 

Thanks,

Thomas

 

 

Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:

 

I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting
today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been
rescheduled once.  If it ends early, I will join the call late. 

 

The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today.
Here is our position.

 

We support the J. Scott compromise:

1.      Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at
the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP
covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names.  This would
provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also
eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way
of avoiding the issue.

2.      Communicate to the GAC:

a.      That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to
cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names

b.      A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing
out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be
difficult to adequately do so otherwise.  (Note that the RySG will provide
some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.)

c.      That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on
this position.

d.      That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the
work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process.

3.      In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the
rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations
to the GNSO Council.

If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take
off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options

 

Drafting Team Members:

The discussion during yesterday?s DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for
all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies
with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in
responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for
the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options
to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further
discussions during yesterday?s DT call.

Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward
and accompanying comments.  Please find below the proposed narrowing down of
options to the following two:

1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting
extending protection for the following provided there is an exception
procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option
#3 in attached doc)
            a) All RCRC and IOC names
             b) All RCRC names but no IOC names

Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of
special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached
doc)

2) RySG Suggested Approach:

a.     Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the
GNSO?s starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the
first round of new gTLDs: ?Consider possible additional protections for the
RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for
international organizations?

b.     Provide a rationale for this position
·      Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the
following:
                                                   i.     Reserving names
for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited
numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the
GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations
for which names would be reserved.
                                                  ii.     Lots of input has
been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list
of organizations could be sufficiently narrow.
                                                 iii.     National laws vary
regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances
about what exceptions are made.
                                                 iv.     Existing rights
protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other
organizations who have rights to names.
                                                  v.     Reserving the
finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that
list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more
problematic from an operational and policy perspective.
                                                 vi.     There are
organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of
the GAC recommended strings.
                                               vii.     The complexities of
this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up
PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not
be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated.

c.     Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the
rationale (i.e., ?fill in the holes?).

Yesterday?s meeting proposed removing from further consideration the
following options:

Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special
protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule
of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). 

Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by
suggesting extending protection for:
a.     All RCRC and IOC names
b.     All RCRC names but no IOC names
c.     All IOC names but no RCRC names
d.     All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
e.     All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names 
f.      A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by
suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an
exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances:
c.     All IOC names but no RCRC names
d.     All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names
e.     All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names 
f.     A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names

Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal

Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel?s office to conduct a legal analysis to
substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or
statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and
RCRC names by law. 

The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August ? all DT
members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with
regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration,
and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move
forward in responding to the GAC proposal.

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Brian 

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN

 

 


  _____  


El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser
confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al
remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el
e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está
prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por
cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del
mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier
comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de
Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for
the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached
files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity
that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not
responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information
Security Policy.