[council] Summary of GAC Communique advice on IGO & Red Cross protections; mentions of GNSO work on Whois
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
Thu Oct 16 22:38:26 UTC 2014
Dear Former Colleagues of the GNSO Council,
As to IGO's and curative rights, I had a meeting this morning with WIPO (representing IGO) and got the clear input that they want to see a separate dispute resolution system for IGO's (and Red Cross) only. They do not want to open up URS and/or UDRP for changes.
Our WG will get continous informal feedback's from IGO's (although they do not want to officially be members of the WG) by informal e-mail discussion, so I hope that we can have a clear view of their position/s at an early stage.
Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
16 oktober 2014, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> skrev:
> Dear Council members,
> We thought you may find a summary of the GAC's Los Angeles communique issued this morning helpful, specifically in relation to references to the issue of IGO & Red Cross protections as well as to Whois policy work.
> On IGOs having preventative protection via the TMCH notices:
> The GAC clarifies that the so-called “claims notice” process should not just be the post-registration Notice of Registered Name (NORN) from the TMCH, but also the pre-registration claims notice issued to the prospective registrant. This should be in two languages, at no cost to the IGOs and last for the duration of the TMCH (in this case the GAC uses the word “perpetuity”).
> On IGOs and curative rights:
> The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement – by providing government’s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing.
> On Red Cross protections:
> The GAC welcomes the latest NGPC resolution on interim protections for the 189 Red Cross national society names and urges the Board and “all relevant parties” to work out remaining issues.
> On Whois policy work:
> The GAC has requested a Road Map from ICANN on timelines for and linkages between various tracks of Whois work, including specifically Privacy/Proxy Accreditation, Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information, implementation of thick Whois and Whois Conflicts with National Laws procedures.
> The Communique also discusses the GAC’s reaction to the NGPC response on Category 1 & 2 safeguards, the issue of 2-character domain names at the second level and the RSEP requests submitted recently, and the GAC’s intention to work inter sessionally to address human rights and other legal considerations.
> The full Communique is here: <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20Communique_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413479079702&api=v2>
> We hope this brief summary of some of the points relevant to current GNSO work is helpful.
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council