Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)

Dec. 8, 2012

      Dear ALAC,

please be so kind to find enclosed a message from the Chair of the
IGO/INGO WG.
May I suggest that if there is enough momentum, the ALAC submits a
consolidated statement answering the questions asked even though this is
not a formal public comment process?
Kind regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ALAC Chair

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO
Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
Date: 	Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:20:27 -0800
From: 	Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>
To: 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) <ocl@gih.com>, Evan
Leibovitch (evan@telly.org) <evan@telly.org>
CC: 	Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org"
<gnso-secs@icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, Brian Peck
<brian.peck@icann.org>

Dear SO/AC Chair,

As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy
Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers
in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO).

The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests
from the ICANN Board and GAC.  As part of its efforts to obtain input
from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its
deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with
addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may
help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide
any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the
GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) by *_15 January 2013_*.

For further background information on the WG's activities to date,
please see:

  * IGO-INGO Web Page(see
    http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm).
  * Final Issue Report for insight into the current practices and issues
    experienced (see
    http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oc...).

  * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts
    were combined with this PDP (see
    http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm).

*Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked
to address:*

As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a
need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top
and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at
a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final
Issue Report:

  * Quantifying the Entities whose names  may be Considered for Special
    Protection
  * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International
    Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned;
  * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of  names
    of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned;
  * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC
    designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations.

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a
need for special protections at the top and second levels in all
existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers; the
PDP WG is expected to:

  * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special
    protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO
    organizations at the first and second levels.
  * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC
    names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and
    make recommendations on the implementation of such protection.
  * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to
    RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round
    of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all
    gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are
    sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific
    recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for
    these identifiers.

*Questions to Consider:*

* *

1.      What kinds of entities should be considered for Special
Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)?

2.      What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective
basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws
for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS?

3.      Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for
Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers?

4.      Do you think there are substantive differences between the
RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs?

5.      Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second
level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made?

6.      In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of
IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of
new gTLDs?

7.      Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and
IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs
be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations
for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have?

8.      Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD
program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs
(understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and
INGOs)?

If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate receiving your input by
*_15 January 2013_* at the latest. Your input will be very much
appreciated.

With best regards,

Thomas Rickert, Chair of the IGO-INGO WG

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>

http://gnso.icann.org

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro

tags

participants (2)