During its 12 April meeting http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-..., the Board passed a motion that included:

Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is not directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken;

The briefing paper has now been released and is attached. The GNSO has not yet addressed this. I note that this initiative overlaps very significantly with the current GNSO Drafting Team focusing on special protections for International Red Cross and Olympics, and the Possible PDP on protections for Inter-governmental Organizations (See draft Issue Paper - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun...). There is the possibility for up to three parallel efforts utilizing significant volunteer and staff resources and at worst could go in three different directions. Alan

Dear Stephane: With the closing of the application period for, and the pending delegation of new gTLDs, the ICANN community is encouraged to continue to consider the perceived need for defensive registrations at the second level, and whether additional protections for established legal rights at the second level should be developed and implemented. In its 12 April 2012 resolution regarding defensive applications (top-level protections) , the New gTLD Committee ofthe Board acknowledged that the sense of the public discussion on this issue through the public comment forum and the public workshop at the Costa Rica Meeting “indicated that trademark protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the registration of second-level domain names.” As required by the Board’s resolution, ICANN staff members have drafted a briefing paper on this topic. The paper suggests that the GNSO Council consider utilizing one of its available processes such as requesting an Issue Report or conducting a policy discussion to address the issue whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. We welcome comments on this paper. Please send me any comment or questions you might have. Best regards Kurt Pritz ICANN cc: GAC – Heather Dryden ALAC - Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond