[ispcp] FW: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)

Sat Dec 8 06:07:59 UTC 2012

All

Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please?

Tony

From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen at icann.org] 
Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37
To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)
Cc: KnobenW at telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs at 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 ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
gnso.secretariat at 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://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 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>
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 at gnso.icann.org 

http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20121208/25983ad2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 58368 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20121208/25983ad2/IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc>