[ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 18:27:26 UTC 2012


Aaah, nice catch, Ron!

Very good question indeed!

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Ron Sherwood
<ron at vitechnicalservices.com>wrote:

> Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
>
> It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué
> from Toronto.
>
> *"> - 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."*
>
>       *If:*      "the international instruments and national laws should
> be sufficient."...
> *Then:*      Why the specific request for protection of these two
> entities in the first place?
>
> Best regards, Ron
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels <
> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> for acronyms.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *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 andnot 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.
>> >
>> > Alan
>>
>
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list