[ispcp] AW: IOC/Red Cross protection in the new gTLD

Wed Sep 19 10:59:30 UTC 2012

I'm in support

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Novoa, Osvaldo
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. September 2012 18:43
An: ispcp at icann.org
Betreff: [ispcp] IOC/Red Cross protection in the new gTLD

Dear All,
Continuing with this issue.  The DT had a conference last week and there was no consensus on the proposal I sent before, there wasn't even consensus whether there was need for a PDP regarding this matter.  In the meanwhile the New GTLD Program Committee published this Resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm , that will force a protection at the second level for the new gTLDs if the GNSO doesn't reach a decision by January 31st.
Personally I think a PDP is necessary just due to the GACs insistency on this issue, if the GNSO doesn´t do it, the Board will do it by itself, as proved by this new resolution.
So I think the ISPCP should maintain its endorsement of J. Scott's proposal.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

________________________________
De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff
Enviado el: Martes, 18 de Septiembre de 2012 10:11
Para: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

All,

As discussed on the last call, we now have the following two questions out for a consensus call so that we put these options out for public comment.  I know the Board's resolution from last week was sent to the group yesterday and although I encourage everyone to read that resolution and we will discuss it, I do not believe that that resolution should sway our path.  Please speak up if you disagree.  If anything, the Board's resolution may be in line with one of the recommendations that we, as a group are considering.

1.       The first question is whether we all truly believe that a full PDP is necessary on the IOC/Red Cross marks.  Most of the group, save Greg S on behalf of the IPC, did believe that a full pdp on this was necessary.   In a full pdp, the legal ramifications of protecting these marks at the second level can be more flushed out and exception processes can be developed (if it is determined that these marks should indeed be protected).  In addition, many in the group discussed wanting more research done on whether the marks of these organizations merited differential treatment from other international organizations (which is the subject of a soon-to-be released final Issue Report.

2.      The Second consensus call item is a proposal put forth by J. Scott and endorsed by the RySG which recommends the following (with some wording tweaks discussed during the last call):

a.      Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC recommendation of September __, 2011 (need to put in exact date) at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations.  This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. [Note from the Chair:  This also would be in line with conservative approach contained in the ICANN Board resolution dated September 14, 2012.]

b.     Communicate to the GAC:

                                            i.            That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international organizations.

                                          ii.             A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise.

                                        iii.            That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position.

                                         iv.            That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process.
Please make sure that you are able to solicit the feedback necessary to respond to the Consensus Call by September 26th.  On the GNSO Council call last week we confirmed that we do have the ability to put this proposal out for public comment.  In the meantime, I would also like to collect some more of the rationale for recommendation 1 (recommending the PDP) and also for the moratorium in recommendation 2. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>  / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20120919/97581380/attachment.html>