More "off-road" policy making. It would seem the board-staff has abandoned the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model for policy development processes. Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: November 30, 2012 2:20:23 PM PST > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD > Program Committee | ICANN > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new- > gtld-26nov12-en.htm > > Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee > > 26 November 2012 > Main Agenda: > Prioritization of New gTLD Applications > IGO Name Protection > Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012. 11.26.NG02 > RCRC IOC Protection > Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03 > > > 1. Main Agenda: > > 1. Prioritization of New gTLD Applications > > No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program engaged in a discussion > on the prioritization of New gTLD applications, including the > prioritization of IDNs, and the progress towards the prioritization > draw scheduled to be held on 17 December 2012. The New gTLD Program > Committee directed the President and CEO to draft a paper exploring > the possibility of, as well as the risks and potential mitigation > efforts, including a geographical region round robin process within > the prioritization draw. The President and CEO noted that it will > be important to assure the impeccable operation of the > prioritization draw, and considerations of the risks inherent in > incorporating a round robin process within the draw must be of > primary consideration. > > 2. IGO Name Protection > > Whereas, the GAC has provided advice to the Board in its Toronto > Communiqué, stating that "in the public interest, implementation of > such protection [of names and acronyms of IGOs against > inappropriate registration] at the second level must be > accomplished prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs, and in > future rounds of gTLDs, at the second and top level." > > Whereas, the GAC advice referenced the current criteria for > registration under the .int top level domain (which are cited in > the Applicant Guidebook as a basis for an IGO to file a legal > rights objection) as a starting basis for protecting IGO names and > acronyms in all new gTLDs, and advised that "this list of IGOs > should be approved for interim protection through a moratorium > against third-party registration prior to the delegation of any new > gTLDs" pending further work on specific implementation measures. > > Whereas, the GNSO is actively engaged in policy discussion > regarding top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO > names, and has initiated a PDP on the broader issue of whether to > protect these names of certain international organizations in all > gTLDS. > > Whereas, there is currently no policy to reserve or impose a > moratorium on the registration by third parties of the names and > acronyms of IGOs meeting the .int criteria in place for the second > level of the current round of new gTLDs. > > Whereas, the protections for the second level, if they are provided > and if they are to be effective, should be in place before the > delegation of the first new gTLDs. > > Whereas, as previously announced, the Board favors a conservative > approach, in that restrictions on second-level registration can be > lifted at a later time.. > > RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG01), the Board requests that the GNSO > continue its work on policy recommendations on top and second-level > protections for certain IGO and INGO names on an expedited basis. > > RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG02), the Board requests that the GNSO > Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is > aware of any concern such as with the global public interest or the > security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into > account in making its decision about whether to include second > level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion > on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant > Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the > first round of the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be > protected shall be those names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under > the current existing criteria to register a domain name in the .int > gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain OR a determination of > eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to ICANN to be > listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the > delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013. > > Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012.11.26.NG02 > > ICANN has received requests for additional protections for the > names and acronyms of IGOs, including from the UN, from the RCRC > and IOC, to prevent the registration of such names and acronyms by > third parties at the second level. These are similar issues and > should be considered at the same time. ICANN committed to > considering the recommendations made for enhancing second-level > protections for rights holders in an earlier public comment forum > and in recent discussions at the Toronto Meeting and international > fora such as the IGF Meeting. > > In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD Program > Committee can remain accountable to all parts of its community, > while taking action that is reasonable based on the following > precedent and rationale: > > 1. The Board set a precedent for this request regarding IGO > names with its resolution adopted on 13 September, which requested > that the GNSO consider a similar proposed solution for the first > round of new gTLDs to protect the RCRC and IOC names at the second > level. > > 2. For historical reasons, the .int top level domain includes > registrations from entities that are not IGOs or those that would > not qualify for registration in .int under the current eligibility > criteria. As the GAC advice focused on current eligibility criteria > as one of its suggested starting points for the creation of a list, > it would be overbroad to extend the moratorium to all current .int > registries. > > In addition, there are entities that, while eligible for > registration in .int, choose to not register in .int. Registration > in the .int should not be a mandatory requirement. It is for that > reason that the requirements for protection do not require > registration in .int, only a demonstration that the entity would > qualify under the current eligibility criteria for .int. Therefore, > the resolution is only as broad as necessary, limiting a list to > those names and acronyms meeting the current eligibility criteria > for .int and who apply to ICANN for inclusion in the moratorium. > This also allows those eligible IGOs that wish to register second > level names within new gTLDs the opportunity to not participate in > the moratorium. > > 3. As reflected in the underlying rationale for the 13 September > 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions- > new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm) resolution with respect to Red Cross/Red > Crescent and International Olympic Committee names, the Board > favors a conservative approach, and that restrictions on second- > level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions > cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered. > That same rationale applies for IGO names and acronyms at the > second-level of the first round of new gTLDs. > > 4. Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect > to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the New gTLD Program Committee > believes that the appropriate course is for the Board to ultimately > leave these issues in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. > The Committee appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an > expedited PDP to develop recommendations to provide any necessary > additional protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second- > levels in all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that > discussion in the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the > results of these policy discussions. > > This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the > security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This action is also > not expected to have a significant impact on financial or other > resources of ICANN. > > 3. RCRC IOC Protection > > Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee on 13 September 2012 > requested that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than > 31 January 2013 if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with > the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, > that the Board should take into account in making its decision > about whether to include second level protections for the IOC and > Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the > Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List > applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round > of the New gTLD Program. > > Whereas, the new gTLD Committee acknowledges that the GNSO Council > has recently approved an expedited PDP to develop policy > recommendations to protect the names and acronyms of IGOs and > certain INGOs – including the RCRC and IOC, in all gTLDs. > > Whereas, although the GNSO Council's 15 November motion did not > pass due to a procedural technicality, the GNSO Council will vote > again on a motion at its 20 December meeting to adopt the IOC/RC > Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact > match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section > 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, pending the outcome of the > recently launched PDP. > > RESOLVED (2012.11.26.NG03), in light of these upcoming policy > discussions to take place in the PDP involving the protection of > International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations, > restrictions for registration of RCRC and IOC names for new gTLDs > at the second level will be in place until such time as a policy is > adopted that may require further action. > > Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03 > > Given the Committee's 13 September resolution as well as the high- > level and community-wide attention on this issue, it is important > for the Committee to indicate that the protections it has > recommended for the RCRC and IOC names at the second level of the > first round of new gTLDs will be adopted until a policy is > developed. In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD > Program Committee can take action that is reasonable based on the > following rationale: > > 1. Consistent with the Board's Singapore resolution with respect > to the IOC and Red Cross issues, the new gTLD Committee believes > that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues > in the hands of ICANN's policy-making bodies. The Committee > appreciates the efforts by the GNSO in initiating an expedited PDP > to develop recommendations to provide any necessary additional > protections for IGO and INGO names at the top and second-levels in > all gTLDs. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in > the GNSO, and the new gTLD Committee awaits the results of these > policy discussions. > > 2. The Committee has been apprised that the motion to grant > temporary protections to the RCRC and the IOC has been resubmitted > to the GNSO Council and, having looked at the issue with voting on > same resolution when it was considered on 15 November 2012, the > Committee expects the Council to adopt the recommendation to > provide such special protection for the RCRC and IOC names at its > meeting on 20 December 2012. Recognizing the likelihood that the > GNSO Council's motion will pass, the Committee believes that it is > appropriate to adopt this resolution at the same time as > consideration of the IGO issue, as a temporary measure, while the > GNSO Council proceeds with the expedited PDP. > > 3. In adopting this resolution at this time, the New gTLD > Program Committee can reassure the impacted stakeholders in the > community, acknowledge and encourage the continuing work of the > GNSO Council, and take an action consistent with its 13 September > 2012 resolution. > > This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the > security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes > of this work may result in positive impacts. This action is also > not expected to have an impact on financial or other resources of > ICANN. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > [log in to unmask] > http://gnso.icann.org > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]