[ALAC] Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee on 10 April 2012

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Apr 13 14:54:45 UTC 2012


First actions of the new gTLD Program Committee:
- No Guidebook changes to address perception of need for defensive 
applications, but increased education and work at 2nd level;
- No Guidebook changes in response to the GNSO RC/IOC recommendations 
at t he top level.

Alan

>From: 
>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
>
>
>10 April 2012
>
>
>Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program 
>Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not 
>conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was 
>granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations 
>set forth by law, the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's 
>Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for 
>any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. 
>The full scope of the Committee's authority is set forth in its 
>charter at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld.
>
>
>  1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
>
>
>Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections 
>for certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights 
>in particular 
>(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);
>
>Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD 
>Program with these elements 
>(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);
>
>Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects 
>of the program have been actively communicated;
>
>Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to 
>submit gTLD applications for defensive purposes to protect 
>established legal rights;
>
>Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to 
>seek input on the sources of this perception and how it could be 
>addressed 
>(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-defensive-applications-06feb12-en.htm);
>
>Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting 
>in Costa Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions 
>raised during the comment period, and additional suggestions with 
>participation from the community (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711);
>
>Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of 
>established legal rights,;
>
>Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and 
>the discussion in the public workshop was transcribed;
>
>Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark 
>protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the 
>registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that 
>cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the 
>registration of top-level domain names;
>
>Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the 
>application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in 
>place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, 
>following the initial application round;
>
>Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about 
>awareness of the protections available and that renewed efforts 
>should be undertaken to broadly communicate those protections to 
>rights holders;
>
>Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the 
>community for its participation in the discussion of this issue.
>
>Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is 
>not directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address 
>defensive gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program 
>Committee directs staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of 
>defensive registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to 
>consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the 
>second level should be undertaken;
>
>Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs 
>staff to continue implementing targeted communications about the 
>processes used and protections available in the New gTLD Program.
>
>
>Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG1-2012.04.10.NG3
>
>[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]
>
>
>
>2. GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International 
>Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
>
>
>Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee 
>acknowledges receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending 
>certain protections to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the 
>International Olympic Committee names at the top level.
>
>Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses to 
>not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time.
>
>
>Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5
>
>[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]




More information about the ALAC mailing list