This contradiction dogs honest defenders of "equal multistakeholders participation" ICANN model. Resulting in a conflict wherein one often feels held hostage to a thing PR-wise branded as "open and equal" but where really civil society participation is needed mostly to sanitize and validate a system totally controlled by the system's "real owners" driven by money, power and control. This is why we keep being shoved about. On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Total bye-bye to multiequalstakeholderism? Gosh, I knew long, German-like > words would not work in English... > > --c.a. > > Carlos A. Afonso > > Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> escreveu: > > 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**** > > 1. *Main Agenda:<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1> > ***** > > > 1. Prioritization of New gTLD Applications<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.a> > **** > 2. IGO Name Protection<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.b> > **** > > > - Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.26.NG01 – 2012. 11.26.NG02<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.b.rationale> > **** > > > 1. RCRC IOC Protection<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.c> > **** > > > - Rationale for Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm#1.c.rationale> > **** > > **** > 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] > > > >