- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Kurt Pritz resigns
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15nov12-en.htm -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

Dear all, please find enclosed the message from the GAC Chair with her summary report of the GAC High Level Meeting. The involvement in this meeting of many in our community has helped raise ICANN's profile with senior government officials of many countries and shown the true diversity that our community is built on. In particular, I would like to thank Yrjö Länsipuro and Jean-Jacques Subrenat for being our Liaisons to the event's organisers and our permanent representatives in the set of events that took place. I would also like to thank members of the ALAC Executive Committee for their work in reaching out to governments during the lunch that was organised on the day. They thought they were going to a lunch - they got put to work and their food got cold while they were interacting with guests. But my biggest thanks go to Heather Dryden and her Team for organising this day's events. In the current political climate, it is important that senior officials improve their understanding of the ICANN community and the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. This day brought many welcome bricks to the edifice and I am pleased that the ALAC was invited to take part in it. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:13:12 -0500 From: <Heather.Dryden(a)*.ca> To: <ocl(a)*.com>, <lesley(a)*.org.uk>, <stephane.vangelder(a)*.com>, <paf(a)*.se>, <jcurran(a)*.net> CC: <jonathan.robinson(a)*.com>, <alice(a)*.org>, <maria.hall(a)*.se>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)*.sg>, <hackshawt(a)*.tt>, <thomas.schneider(a)*.ch>, <Peter.Nettlefold(a)*.au> Dear SO and AC chairs, I am pleased to send you the attached Chair's Summary report of the High Level Meeting from 15 October, 2012 in Toronto, and would like to offer asincere thank you for meeting with senior officials attending the HLM. These efforts helped ensure a very successful meeting. Please distribute accordingly. The document has been sent for translation into the UN languages and Portuguese and has also been circulated to the ICANN Board. The Summary will also be posted to the GAC website. Best regards, Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee

3 2

ALAC Response to IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Dear members of the ALAC, At-Large and IDN WG, * Re: Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document (Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels)* A draft response to the document specified above has been prepared and posted at the following At-Large Policy Development wiki page for your review and comments: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36212771 PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT BY END OF MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012! The ALAC will vote on the response immediately after the 19th so that the IDN Program Team can take it into consideration as they are finalizing the document based on comments received at the end of the month. Note: Though the comment period is over, we are able to channel this response directly to the VIP Program Team based on an agreement in Toronto. Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:42 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels To: rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels 24 September 2012 Comment Period Opens on 24 September 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): The Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program deals with the variant form of top-level domain (TLD) names in different scripts. To enable IDN Variant TLDs in the root, it is necessary to establish the Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the DNS Root Zone. The Label Generation Rules Process is a way to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels. The process must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process project team, consisting of global volunteers with expert consultants and ICANN staff, has produced the first public draft of the LGR Process document. The team now seeks community input on the proposed process and the principles that support it. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document will be discussed at a public session at the ICANN meeting in Toronto in October 2012. The session schedule will be available at ICANN Toronto Meeting Website ( http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule) Comments received in this Public Comment period as well as community feedback during the Toronto meeting will be incorporated into the final draft and published for second round of Public Comment in November 2012. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/lgr-procedure-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ This message was sent to rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20657474&l=6333&s=R4TD&m=89…

1 0

Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan)

5 6

RE : Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by jjs.global Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

Alan & Evan, I follow your rationale and support the positions suggested by you. Jean-Jacques. Envoyé depuis un mobile SamsungAlan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a écrit :NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: 'secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council

3 2

Fwd: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

FYI >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:49:07 +0000 > >Hello All, > >Just a note that the Board had a 2.5 hour call on the WHOIS review today. > >A resolution was passed, but the Board requested further work on the >rationale before it is published. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Yup. A CEO who is "gets it" and is actively paying attention is likely to be more effective than a Board committee that is far less in touch (certainly physically). And the Board is supposedly still watching the CEO. So I am not unhappy with the current situation. Whether it will work, we will all have to wait and see. Alan At 07/11/2012 09:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Thanks Alan. > >Item #4 (and the BC commentary on it) seems moot, now that >Compliance now reports to the CEO. I think the RT intent was, like >ours, to get it out of ICANN legal. > > > >On 7 November 2012 19:40, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce >thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the >Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. > >Alan > >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: '<mailto:secretary@icann.org>secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >

1 0

Fwd: MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

FYI. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:42:01 -0500 >Subject: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST >ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR > CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE > (IOC) NAMES > >All, > >On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the >following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team. For the >record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by >the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were >supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual >Property Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, >the representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the >International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The >Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. > >Thanks. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC >COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES > >Made by: Jeff Neuman >Seconded by: > >WHEREAS: > >The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and >CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . >incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested >Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial >application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice >based on the global public interest, . . ." >(<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has >considered a number of different options with respect to protections >of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal >to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the >second level in new gTLDS; > >The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP >and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC >names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed >on 9 November 2012; > >The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) >to evaluate possible protections for certain international >organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to >recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and > >Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council >recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of >the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the >exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first >round of new gTLDs. > >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: > >That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's >recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and >RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the >Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September >2011pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development >process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental >Organizations. > >That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team >for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby >disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and > >That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these >recommendations to the ICANN Board. > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

1 0

Fwd: Motion to Adopt IGO-INGO PDP WG Charter for Submission to the Council
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

FYI. Alan >From: Lanre Ajayi <lanre(a)pinet.com.ng> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt IGO-INGO PDP WG Charter for >Submission to the Council >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:34:23 +0100 > >To the GNSO Council, > >On behalf of the IGO-INGO Protection PDP WG Charter Drafting Team, I >am pleased to present the following motion and draft WG Charter >(attached) which was approved by the Drafting Team. > >Motion to approve the Charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group > >Made by: Lanre Ajayi >Seconded by: > >Whereas > >On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development >Process (PDP) on the protection of certain IGO and INGO names in all >gTLDs, and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of >fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; > >Following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its >members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; > >The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. > >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, > >The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the >GNSO Council Liaison to the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group. > >The GNSO Council further directs that the work of IGO-INGO >Protection PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days >after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can >select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, >the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. > >Charter [ATTACHED]

1 0