RE: [ispcp] [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Osvaldo

Sorry for chipping in late. My response tends to align with Mikey?s on
points 1 and 3 and I guess I feel a little stronger against fee reductions
for other entities.

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: 03 May 2013 21:01
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing
for Objections

 

hi Osvaldo,

 

1.  i'm very reluctant to hand "equivalent standing" to non-ICANN entities.
that sets a precedent that could lead to all sorts of trouble in the future

 

2.  i'm OK with, but not enthusiastic about, about fee reductions -- and
would hope for some boundaries around what they can file objections to.

 

3.  i dislike this -- it reenforces the "GAC as preferred end run" notion
that seems to be emerging.  don't like an application and can't get it
denied on your own?  go to the GAC, they'll kill it for you.  ugh.

 

mikey

 

 

On May 3, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





All,

We seem to be getting to the end of this matter, but I need your opinion on
the questions posted by Berry Cobb.

In general there was no support to waive the fees of the TMCH fro the IGO
and INGO.

With respect to these specific questions:

1.-  I don?t have the background on the GAC and ALAC standing for filing
objections, though I understand the reason for GAC?s.  I would support
waiving the fees for the qualifying IGOs and INGOs.

2.- The same

3.-  I don?t understand the question, maybe due to some translation issue.
It seems to mean that the IGO or INGO that has an objection would have to go
through the GAC.  If this is the case, it would be a GAC issue and I don?t
think the GSO or its members would have anything to say about it.

Hoping to hear from you,

Best regards,

Osvaldo

 

  _____  

De:  <mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner- <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> gnso-igo-ing
<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> o@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Berry Cobb
Enviado el: Viernes, 03 de Mayo de 2013 14:36
Para:  <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for
Objections

 

Hi All,

 

Judging by the responses and the Chair?s assessment thus far, it appears
that there is not much support for Fee Waivers at the various levels of the
protection mechanisms discussed, with the exception at the top-level for
future applications of gTLDs.  We ask that the WG stakeholders respond to
the following questions in the context that an organization?s identifiers
would not be placed on a reserved names list or listed in the Applicant
Guidebook as ineligible for registration:

1.      Is there support for IGO, IOC, and RCRC to have equivalent standing
similar to the GAC and ALAC for filing objections against top-level
applications for gTLDs? (Note that there is no charge of a filing fee for
that GAC and ALAC)

2.      If there is no support for equivalent standing, is there support for
a fee reduction for filing objections to new gTLD applications by IGO, IOC,
and RCRC?

3.      If there is no support for either concept, what are your thoughts
about the organizations seeking protection to collaborate with the GAC for
gTLD applications where an objection is being considered?

 

We will discuss this topic at our 8 May 2013 conference call.

 

Thank you for your input.  B

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

 

  _____  

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.

 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)