+1 On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi, > > I agree that the global participatory democratic experiment that is the > multistakeholder model as expressed at ICANN is experiencing deep wounds > and is in critical condition. > > But we are not dead and gone yet. And we should not go out quietly > without a fight. > > It is up to all of those who care about ICANN and the multistakeholder > governance model to work together to stop the madness as soon as possible. > > Perhaps a first step is combine together to request reconsideration of the > recent Board and CEO actions. > > avri > > On 2 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Carlos A. Afonso 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 > >> • 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] > > > > > > >