[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 16:38:45 UTC 2012
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with
those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the
extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not
enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of
the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to
ferret out those facts.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
> Several things of particular note:
> - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs and not just Community TLDs,
> the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their
> contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
> - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected
> prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be
> given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have
> committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be
> protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC
> names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws
> should be sufficient.
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
More information about the ALAC