Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
Dear all, The ccTLD community has received an invitation from the GNSO to provide input and information to their work on a Policy Development Process dealing with Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs). See below for further details. If your ccTLD is interested in providing input, it will be in an individual capacity, not as the ccNSO. Kind regards, Gabi === 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) 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 <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
Hello everyone, I'm a member of the GNSO Working Group on this issue, and as such would be happy to discuss/update any Councilor/ccNSO wishing to respond. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> To: "ccnso-members@icann.org" <ccnso-members@icann.org>, "cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org> CC: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Date: 12/11/2012 10:07 AM Subject: [ccnso-council] Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear all, The ccTLD community has received an invitation from the GNSO to provide input and information to their work on a Policy Development Process dealing with Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs). See below for further details. If your ccTLD is interested in providing input, it will be in an individual capacity, not as the ccNSO. Kind regards, Gabi === 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) 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 <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
participants (2)
-
Gabriella Schittek -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu