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