Thanks for this clarification Klaus.
KK
From: "klaus.stoll" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: "klaus.stoll" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:53:50 +0000
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [npoc-voice] NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
Dear Friends
Just for clarification, the NPOC draft is not approving IOC/RC special
treatment. What we want is to move away from specific organizations and
names to a very clear definition of a very small but at the same time very
deserving special treatment.
Personally, I do not think that the IOC comes even near this and that we
hope that we end up with something like UN +10 We should move the
discussion from specific names to a particular group that can be clearly
defined or decide that no protection is needed. The later seems to be the
reasonable way, but at the same time not the realistic way.
Yours
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [npoc-voice] NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
Yes, I was speaking in general of Portugal's support for the idea that there
were UN system and other organizations that merited the same treatment.
This is what I associated to the NPOC proposal. Incidentally, like NPOC they
support approving further IOC/RC special treatment as proposed in the
various flavors of motion currently being discussed.
I make no claim that Portugal and I support the same end result at this
meeting. It is only in the fourth part of my proposed response that there
its any similarity with my proposal:
Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do
not need further protection.
Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote
before the end of a comment period.
Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board
agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive
change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair
to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community
applicants.
Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving
preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being
given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for
ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names.
Avri
Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Carlos, thanks for the clarification about Portugal.
Alain
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
Alain, I am not sure Portugal made the same proposal as NPOC's.
Portugal's
is quite detailed and treats separately the actual case of IOC and
RC, and
the proposal to embed in the rules the treatment of these cases based
on
the characteristics of well defined types of organizations instead of
going
on a case by case basis.
I will look for the transcript.
--c.a.
On 03/13/2012 02:06 AM, Alain Berranger wrote:
Robin,
Thanks for the clarification and the sense of direction the NCSG
needs to
take. It is interesting that Portugal made the same proposal as
NPOC. I
think we need to engage on substantive ideas on how to go forward.
The
UN+9/10 may just be a acceptable outcome down the road... we just
don't
know. It would be interesting to dig into the Portugal proposal.
Alain
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Robin Gross<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
I have to disagree, Adam. We need the community to engage in this
issue
very much. This proposal is a not a final text, but a starting
point to
try to reach a compromise. If it is "too late" for the community
to
engage, it is because the RC/IOC came so late in the game. I don't
believe
the bottom-up policy development process should be shoved aside
because
of
AC/IOC's late request.
Robin
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
Alain, hi.
Suggest it's a little late to be recommending such a fundamental
change to the applicant proces. Not going to fly. So let's not
waste
our time on it.
Best,
Adam
Adam Peake
GLOCOM Tokyo
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Alain Berranger
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear NCSG Colleagues,
FYI
Alain
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean-Louis Ecochard<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
To: Alain
Berranger<alain.berranger@**gmail.com<mailto:alain.berranger@**gmail.com><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>,
"[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Alain,
Merci de votre proposition.
One of the prime concern is the conversion of a known NGO domain
name
into a
gTLD.
This is because a domain name is an NGO brand on the internet.
We also know that words like relief, cancer, heart, peace,
nature, etc.
cannot receive trademark protection yet they represent essential
internet
brands of the NGOs they represent.
I believe ANY NGO with a strong internet brand presence would
find it
disastrous to see their domain name converted into a gTLD (e.g.
In our
case
of nature.org seeing a .nature gTLD).
Henceforth I recommend we propose protection of any .org or
.org.country
domain name in active use by "Any organization operating globally
in the
public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in
the
country
where its Headquarters are located, and its members." as of
January 1
2012.
This means that ICANN would prohibit the creation of a gTLD that
is the
same
as a domain name of an NGO in use 1/1/12 and active.
This ensures protection of the capital invested by NGOs on their
brand
presence without making it too complicated for ICANN to
administer
(I.e.
Check for .org existence, check if own by NGO).
I welcome thoughts and discussions on this extension of Alain's
suggestion.
Thanks,
JL
be green – read on the screen
--
Jean-Louis Écochard
Vice President and Chief Information Officer
The Nature Conservancy
New Zealand Office
126D Apotu Road, RD1
Whangarei 0185
New Zealand
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+1.703.212.3999 (New Zealand Office US dial)
+64.9.974.8195 (New Zealand Office)
+1.703.841.5342 (Arlington World Office Phone)
+1.703.273.0713 (Arlington World Office Fax)
+1.703.841.5304 (Executive Assistant, Jennifer Manaloto)
Skype jecochard
IM (MSN) [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, (Yahoo& AIM) [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Facebook jecochard
Twitter @jecochard
LinkedIn
http://nz.linkedin.com/in/**jecochard<http://nz.linkedin.com/in/jecochard>
The Nature Conservancy www.nature.org
NetHope www.nethope.org
Conservation Commons www.conservationcommons.org
"An individual without information can't take responsibility. An
individual
with information can't help but take responsibility."
- Jan Carlzon, former President and CEO of the Scandinavian
Airlines
Group
From: Alain Berranger
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><**mailto:[log in to unmask]**com<[log in to unmask]>
>>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:06:11 -0400
To:<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><**mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: [npoc-voice] NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
Dear NPOC members:
Greetings from San José. As Acting Vice Chair, I would like to
consult
you
on an important issue:
Context: Given the tension here on the IOC and Red Cross
exemption
(some of
us call it protection) and the Drafting Committee Chair report to
GNSO
this
morning - we find it wise, for the benefit of our current and
future
NPOC
members, as well as the ICANN Community at large, that NPOC
promotes and
supports a) the proposal from the WG and b), in a broader manner,
the
generic extension of this protection based on avoiding the
setting of a
precedent, and based on objective and independantly verifiable
criteria
to
define who or who does not qualify:
Proposition:
Would receive new gTLD protection: "Any organization operating
globally
in
the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality
in the
country where its Headquarters are located, and its members."
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please
respond
by
Tuesday 13 March 17:00 San José time.
Best regards,
Alain Berranger
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<
http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-**ceci/team/board-of-directors/<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://**www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
>
Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
www.gkpfoundation.org<http://**www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,
www.chasquinet.org<http://www.**chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
>
interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN,
http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN,
http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
|
