[ispcp] RV: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections

[Novoa, Osvaldo]

All,
We seem to be getting to the end of this matter, but I need your opinion on the questions posted by Berry Cobb.
In general there was no support to waive the fees of the TMCH fro the IGO and INGO.
With respect to these specific questions:
1.-  I don't have the background on the GAC and ALAC standing for filing objections, though I understand the reason for GAC's.  I would support waiving the fees for the qualifying IGOs and INGOs.
2.- The same
3.-  I don't understand the question, maybe due to some translation issue.  It seems to mean that the IGO or INGO that has an objection would have to go through the GAC.  If this is the case, it would be a GAC issue and I don't think the GSO or its members would have anything to say about it.
Hoping to hear from you,
Best regards,
Osvaldo

________________________________
De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org] En nombre de Berry Cobb
Enviado el: Viernes, 03 de Mayo de 2013 14:36
Para: gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections

Hi All,

Judging by the responses and the Chair's assessment thus far, it appears that there is not much support for Fee Waivers at the various levels of the protection mechanisms discussed, with the exception at the top-level for future applications of gTLDs.  We ask that the WG stakeholders respond to the following questions in the context that an organization's identifiers would not be placed on a reserved names list or listed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for registration:

1.      Is there support for IGO, IOC, and RCRC to have equivalent standing similar to the GAC and ALAC for filing objections against top-level applications for gTLDs? (Note that there is no charge of a filing fee for that GAC and ALAC)

2.      If there is no support for equivalent standing, is there support for a fee reduction for filing objections to new gTLD applications by IGO, IOC, and RCRC?

3.      If there is no support for either concept, what are your thoughts about the organizations seeking protection to collaborate with the GAC for gTLD applications where an objection is being considered?

We will discuss this topic at our 8 May 2013 conference call.

Thank you for your input.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail at berrycobb.com<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>
@berrycobb



________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20130503/90c9d3bf/attachment.html>