FW: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
All Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please? Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com) Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs@icann.org; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCPs input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as identifiers, of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Groups effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Groups deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * <http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/> http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below 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)? Group View: 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? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 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? Group View: 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? Group View: 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)? Group View: For further background information on the WGs activities to date, please see: · Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). · Protection of International Organization Names 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-01o ct12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oc t12-en.pdf). · 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). Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Tony, I'm in the WG so Would gladly lead this.regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone El 08/12/2012, a las 04:39, "tony holmes" <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> escribió: All Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please? Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>) Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCP’s input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as “identifiers�, of intergovernmental organizations (IGO’s) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO’s) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below 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)? Group View: 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? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 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? Group View: 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? Group View: 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)? Group View: For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please see: · Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). · Protection of International Organization Names 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). Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n 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. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n 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.
Osvaldo Many thanks - would appreciate that. Could I ask you to complete the template and circulate to the ISPCP private list initially for comments. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: 08 December 2012 17:31 To: tony holmes Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] FW: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Tony, I'm in the WG so Would gladly lead this.regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone El 08/12/2012, a las 04:39, "tony holmes" <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> escribió: All Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please? Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>) Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCP’s input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as “identifiers , of intergovernmental organizations (IGO’s) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO’s) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below 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)? Group View: 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? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 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? Group View: 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? Group View: 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)? Group View: For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please see: · Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). · Protection of International Organization Names 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). Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est dirigido nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci n 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. Est prohibida cualquier utilizaci n, difusi n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol tica de Seguridad de la Informaci n 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.
Dear Friends, I hope you all had a happy new year and began 2013 with your families. I am sorry for my delay in answering Tony's mail but it was a complicated end of the year and just now, during my holidays, I was able to finish my answer to this document. I am enclosing my proposal for your comments, our response has to be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat at the latest by January 15 so I encourage you to send your comments as soon as possible. I apologize again for the delay. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________________ De: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de tony holmes [tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Enviado el: sábado, 08 de diciembre de 2012 04:07 a.m. Para: ispcp@icann.org Asunto: [ispcp] FW: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) All Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please? Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com) Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs@icann.org; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCP’s input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as “identifiers”, of intergovernmental organizations (IGO’s) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO’s) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below 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)? Group View: 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? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 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? Group View: 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? Group View: 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)? Group View: For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please see: · Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). · Protection of International Organization Names 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). Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org 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.
participants (2)
-
Novoa, Osvaldo -
tony holmes