+1 On 7/22/2012 10:12 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Weighing in on this issue, personally, my preference is for Option 1 > below since no new changes have been shown to be needed. There are > already existing mechanisms in place that provide ample opportunity > for these groups to protect their legitimate rights. What they want > is something more: global exclusive licensing rights - which does not > exist anywhere in law, but the culture of ICANN is not one of asking > hard questions when big players want special privileges. > > So much of ICANN's energy is being drawn into this single tiny issue, > which is really so insignificant in comparison to the big picture > issues ICANN is facing (like pressure from govts and altering DNS). > And this issue was dealt with about 5 years ago when the Reserve > Names Working Group decided these kinds of protections were a rat-hole > and recommended against doing what RC/IOC now ask for. So let's not > let it waste anymore of the community's energy and attention on these > excessive special privileges and let's see how the existing protection > mechanisms play out. Indeed there were no "bad applications" in the > first round that needed to be stopped based on these group's > legitimate rights. So why is it sucking out all of ICANN's energy and > attention? And what is the community not facing because we are all > focused on RC/IOC's request for special privileges? So I vote for > Option 1 below. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *Brian Peck <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Subject: **[gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red >>> Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS* >>> *Date: *18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT >>> *To: *"[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" >>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> >>> List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS >>> In response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please >>> find below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to >>> date for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect >>> the RCRC and IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS: >>> >>> 1. Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special >>> protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the >>> current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD >>> Registry Agreement). >>> 2. Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as >>> extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all >>> or a subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each >>> organization’s names. >>> 3. Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now and >>> wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after >>> the delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or >>> consider lowering costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( >>> i.e., Thomas Rickert’s proposal) >>> 4. Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as >>> part of a broader PDP on the protection of names for >>> international organizations >>> 5. Ask ICANN General Counsel’s office to conduct a legal analysis >>> to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty >>> law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars >>> to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. >>> >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything >>> further at this time. Thanks. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> Brian Peck >>> Policy Director >>> ICANN >> >