[council] RE: Adopted Resolutions from 4 June 2013 - Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee

[Thomas Rickert]

Bruce,
thanks for your e-mail and the additional information. I will certainly convey that message to the members of the WG.

Regards,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 07.06.2013 um 08:16 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>:

> 
> Hello All,
> 
> One of piece of the annex that relates to the GAC recommendations around the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross names is worth reviewing:
> 
> "GAC Advice:   The GAC advises the ICANN Board to amend the provisions in the new gTLD Registry Agreement pertaining to the IOC/RCRC names to confirm that the protections will be made permanent prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs.
> 
> Board response:   The new gTLD Program Committee accepts the GAC advice.   The proposed final version of the Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 includes protection for an indefinite duration for IOC/RCRC names.   Specification 5 of this version of the Registry Agreement includes a list of names (provided by the IOC and RCRC Movement) that "shall be withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator at the second level within the TLD."
> 
> The protection was added pursuant to a new gTLD Program Committee resolution to maintain these protections "until such time as a policy is adopted that may require further action"  (204.11.26.NG03).   The resolution recognized the GNSO's initiation of an expedited PDP.   Until such time as the GNSO approves recommendations in the PDP and the Board adopts them, the NGPC's resolution protecting IOC/RCRC names will remain in place.   Should the GNSO submit any recommendations on this topic, the NGPC will confer with the GAC prior to taking action on any such recommendations."
> 
> 
> I think the key message here is that it is possible for the GNSO to develop a policy that offers an alternative to a particular implementation of the new gTLD program - including the IOC/RCRC names and the trademark clearinghouse.    The policy recommendation would then go through the normal community process where advisory committees can provide advice to the Board prior to accepting a recommendation, and the Board can refer such advice to the GNSO for review.
> 
> If members of the GNSO community  feel strongly that a particular implementation is wrong or could be significantly improved - then the GNSO Council should consider how to efficiently conduct a policy process to provide formal policy recommendations in that area.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
>