[ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 21:58:27 UTC 2012
Thank you for the excellent report, I am grateful and appreciative.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> During the discussions between the Board and the GAC preceding the
> launch of the new gTLD program, the GAC requested special protection
> of Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) and International Olympic Committee
> (IOC) names, due to the special protection given to these names by a
> variety of unique international agreements and treaties.
> The Board responded by reserving a specific list of names from being
> used during the first round of the new gTLD program, and remanded the
> issue to the GNSO for further deliberations. Such deliberations were
> to address both use of RC/RC and IOC names both at the top and second
> level for new gTLDs.
> The Board action was implemented by means of provisions in the
> Guidebook, Section 18.104.22.168.3 Page 2-10 to 2-11.
> To enable the GNSO to properly consider the GAC request, additional
> information was requested of the GAC. This
> detail was provided in September.
> A GNSO Drafting Team was created with the intent of providing
> guidance to the GNSO. Details of the groups deliberations (including
> transcripts) can be found in the
> <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>GNSO Calendar, with meetings
> generally held on Wednesdays, and in the groups
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/>mailing list (which has
> seen much traffic).
> If the GNSO were to take no action at this point, the exemptions
> already in the Applicant Guidebook will stand.
> I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments
> on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special
> exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is
> shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also
> generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and
> there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept.
> My personal position has been that although these special exemptions
> are not what I would have preferred, it is clear that the Board has
> already agreed to the basic concept, and the DT's major
> responsibility is to ensure that the exemptions can be implemented in
> as rational and effective means as possible, minimizing the need for
> extraordinary action later in the process and definitely minimizing
> the impact on other gTLD applicants.
> The DT decided that the first priority was to provide clarification
> on how top-level domains should be treated, as it was viewed as
> important that any changes be finalized prior to the end of the gTLD
> application period. Following extensive discussion, the group has
> recommendation on how Section 22.214.171.124.3 should be revised.
> This recommendation, or what results from discussions over the next
> week, will be discussed with interested members of the GAC on a
> teleconference on March 2.
> The intent is that whatever comes out of the next week of discussions
> go to the GNSO in Costa Rica, for potential adoption in its meeting
> on Wednesday, allowing the Board to consider adoption on Friday. The
> DT will likely also suggest that if any applications already
> submitted are disqualified due to these changes, that the entire
> application fee be refunded.
> The above discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/FZ7bAQ.
> The Recommendation can be found at
> https://community.icann.org/x/GJ7bAQ. Please add any comments to the
> recommendation page. Due to the tight timing, the earlier that
> comments are made, the more likely they are to be considered.
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Cell: +679 998 2851
More information about the ALAC