Page History
...
The NCSG support the board postion as indicated on the following items:
...
- 1,
...
- All of 2,
...
- All of 3,
...
- 4.1, 4.3,
...
- All of 5,
...
- 6.1.2 through 6.1.7, 6.2.2, 6.2.4, 6.2.6 - 6.2.9, 6.2.10.1, 6.2.10.2, 6.2.11, 6.2.13, all of 6.3 and of 6.4,
...
- all of 7,
...
- all of 8,
...
- 9
...
- ,
- 10
...
- ,
- 11.1,
Support Board Response with Additional Comment
1.) The NCSG did not agree the Staff designated name for this REC6 issue. Rec6 indicates strong support for calling calling these issue issues: Principles of International Law. NCSG support this namingsupports this name for the issue.
2.2.4) The NSG recommends the wording "material detriment to the targeted community."
...
6.1.2) NCSG wishes to point out the the GAC postion runs against the recommendations of the the GNSO, the IRT and the STI.
6.1.3) The NCSG argues that NCSG believes that it is impossible to set objective and fair criteria for such determinations.
6.1.4) The NCSG understands both sides of this issues and shares the same concerns as the Board - trademark owners grabbing easy trademarks and gaming the system. A mechanism to address this issue is needed.
10) The NCSG support supports the work of the JAS WG.
10.6) The NCSG recommends that the JAS WG discuss meeting the GAC request by allowing for support of country sponsored applications that are from the Least Developed Nations (LDC) as defined by the UN.
11.1) The NCSG shares the Board's concern about the relative various definitions of criminal behavior.
...
While the NCSG has not taken a postion on whether the GAC should be exempt from paying the fee for making objection fees, the NCSG supports the following principles:
a.) Whenever an objection is made on the basis of a fee exemption, the applicant must have a similar fee exemption for the reply.
b.) There should be a review done after the round on the affects of free objections.
...
Areas where the
...
NCSG needs more information to make a determination
6.2.1) We would like to know which timeframes are being referred to. The NCSG has a concern about any timeframe in which the respondent has less time to respond.
12) We think we support the Board, and we do so in so far as the Board is supporting the REC6 recommendations on sensitive strings.
...
Lack of Support for Board response
4.2) The NCSG does not agree with the position of the board. It think that this should be rated a 2 as Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 as it goes beyond the role of the Board to seek data on the application process itself.
...
6.2.3) The NCSG supports the recommendation made in the STI process: the respondent should be given the right to participate in selecting a panel.
6.2.5) The NCSG believes that this should be Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as the default should not be a presumption of guilt.
6.2.10.3) The NCSG believes that this should be Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as the default should not be a presumption of guilt.
6.2.12) There was a specific agreement in the STI that the URS would be limited to locking. This difference from the UDRP was how the URS was sold to the community.
11.2.1) Strong Support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 because of the difficulty in categorizing strings.
11.3) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 becasue of serious privacy concerns.
11.4) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 because is is outside of ICANN's scope.
11.5) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 becasue of serious privacy concerns.
11.6) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 1B to insure that implementations are done in accordance with privacy standards.
