[ALAC] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)

Sun Dec 9 03:18:47 UTC 2012

Dear Olivier,

Great idea.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> Dear ALAC,
>
> please be so kind to find enclosed a message from the Chair of the
> IGO/INGO WG.
> May I suggest that if there is enough momentum, the ALAC submits a
> consolidated statement answering the questions asked even though this is
> not a formal public comment process?
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Chair
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO
> Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
> Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:20:27 -0800
> From:   Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com) <ocl at gih.com>, Evan
> Leibovitch (evan at telly.org) <evan at telly.org>
> CC:     Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org"
> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail at berrycobb.com>, Brian Peck
> <brian.peck at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SO/AC Chair,
>
>
>
> As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy
> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers
> in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO).
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests
> from the ICANN Board and GAC.  As part of its efforts to obtain input
> from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its
> deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with
> addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may
> help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide
> any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the
> GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>) by *_15 January 2013_*.
>
>
>
> For further background information on the WG's activities to date,
> please see:
>
>   * IGO-INGO Web Page(see
>     http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm).
>   * Final Issue Report for insight into the current practices and issues
>     experienced (see
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf
> ).
>
>   * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts
>     were combined with this PDP (see
>     http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm).
>
>
>
>
>
> *Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked
> to address:*
>
> As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a
> need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top
> and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at
> a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final
> Issue Report:
>
>
>
>   * Quantifying the Entities whose names  may be Considered for Special
>     Protection
>   * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International
>     Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned;
>   * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of  names
>     of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned;
>   * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC
>     designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations.
>
>
>
> Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a
> need for special protections at the top and second levels in all
> existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers; the
> PDP WG is expected to:
>
>
>
>   * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special
>     protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO
>     organizations at the first and second levels.
>   * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC
>     names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and
>     make recommendations on the implementation of such protection.
>   * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to
>     RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round
>     of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all
>     gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are
>     sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific
>     recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for
>     these identifiers.
>
>
>
> *Questions to Consider:*
>
> * *
>
> 1.      What kinds of entities should be considered for Special
> Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.      What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective
> basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws
> for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS?
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.      Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for
> Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers?
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.      Do you think there are substantive differences between the
> RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs?
>
>
>
>
>
> 5.      Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second
> level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made?
>
>
>
>
>
> 6.      In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of
> IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of
> new gTLDs?
>
>
>
>
>
> 7.      Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and
> IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs
> be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations
> for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have?
>
>
>
>
>
> 8.      Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD
> program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs
> (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and
> INGOs)?
>
>
>
>
>
> If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate receiving your input by
> *_15 January 2013_* at the latest. Your input will be very much
> appreciated.
>
>
>
> With best regards,
>
>
>
> Thomas Rickert, Chair of the IGO-INGO WG
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851