The GNSO was placed in an awkward situation in this case - the RC/IOC request was made to the Board and a GAC letter requesting GNSO consideration was then also sent to the GNSO Council. All this was after the Board's official resolution in June 2011 that the new gTLD program would launch in January 2012. As a result, the final Applicant Guidebook contains the current mechanism of treating certain RC/IOC names (and their identical matches) as strings ineligible for registration, not as Reserved Names - so giving rise to some of the options now under discussion by the GNSO group convened to discuss the issue (e.g. classifying them as Reserved Names would have different consequences, and affect the applicability of String Similarity Review).
 
The broader context is, of course, the increasing involvement of the GAC and how that will change a number of things, from its interactions with the Board to the role/influence of the GNSO. There is also the perception that some GAC members are the ones driving the GAC agenda for the most part. In addition to the RC/IOC issue, the other big issue of concern to many of us is the GAC's involvement in pushing for compliance with all the demands that law enforcement authorities have made to the Registrars.
 
Therefore I don't see what's happening as necessarily pandering to the GAC but more as part of a broader strategy that the GNSO must come to grips with, as to how to deal with the GAC on an ongoing basis. One of the concerns involves how to maintain GNSO authority over gTLD policy issues without doing so in such a way that the GAC makes it a practice of doing a "run around" the GNSO and engaging directly with the Board - possibly in conflict with the GNSO's own policy recommendations. At the same time, rolling over and caving to every GAC request would be inappropriate.
 
On this particular issue, I agree largely with Avri - special treatment of certain strings is against GNSO policy, but that given what's already happened, the Board's already decided on giving a certain level of protection to these two organizations in this application round so doing more at this stage would not only run counter to community-developed GNSO policy but set an unnecessary precedent for future multi-stakeholder dialogue.
 
At the same time, I think it's good that the RC/IOC discussion group is considering the options outlined by Jeff Neuman. It shows good faith on the part of the GNSO and a real effort to figure out alternative mechanisms that may be helpful for future application rounds.
 
Cheers
Mary 
 


 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From: Konstantinos Komaitis <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2/3/2012 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
I totally agree with you Avri - however, there is this idea that we need to 'please' the GAC, which I totally don't get, but yet again we appear to be the minority. My understanding is that special provisions will be created for these bodies- at least in this round of the applications. I found this also problematic for various reasons: does this mean that we are creating new policies upon the existing and established ones, especially when these established ones are considered 'closed' because the applications have already started? Why is the GNSO placed in such an awkward position? And, why the GAC wants this special deal? Is it the whole of the GAC?

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Παρασκευή, 3 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 6:15 μμ
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

Hi,

One thing occurs to me as to why there is such pressure to get GNSO to go along.  This puts the fig-leaf of Multistakeholder decision on yet another of the decisions where the BoardStaff circumvented the process.

So, Not only do I think this is the wrong thing to do, I think it is also another slip down the slippery slope of BoardStaff decision making that circumvents the Policy process for ICANN.

The existing mechanisms are sufficient to protect IOC and IFRC at the first and even second levels - we do not need to open this barn door.

avri


On 3 Feb 2012, at 08:27, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Both IOC and IFRC have been given an exception for this round of new gTLDs by direct BoardStaff fiat, though it is against every previous policy recommendation and on the advice, for some meaning of 'advice', of just one AC.  I just do not understand why they would be granted anything further than that.
>
> avri
>
> On 3 Feb 2012, at 07:30, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
>> While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for both.
>