Page History

...

Made by: Jeff Neuman
Seconded by:

MOTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IGO-INGO PROTECTIONS

MOTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IGO-INGO PROTECTIONS

WHEREAS:

1. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore on 28 June 2011, the ICANN Board passed a Resolution authorizing the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD program and directing that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be amended to incorporate text concerning protection of specific names requested by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the American Red Cross  (collectively, the RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the top level only during the initial application round, until the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) develop policy advice based on the global public interest;
   
   
2. On 14 September 2011 the GAC sent a Proposal to the GNSO Council recommending that certain RCRC and IOC names also be protected at the second level in a number of specific languages, which proposal was intended to complement the ICANN Board’s June 2011 resolution, and which acknowledged the need for further work by the GAC and the GNSO to develop permanent protections for these organizations at the top level;
   
   
3. At the ICANN meeting in Dakar in October 2011, the GNSO Council formed a Drafting Team to develop recommendations relating to both top and second level protections for RCRC and IOC names;
   
   
4. On 11 January 2012 ICANN staff published an updated AGB that prohibited the delegation of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level during the first round of the New gTLD program;
   
   
5. On 26 March 2012 the GNSO Council adopted three of the Drafting Team’s recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level;
   
   
6. On 12 April 2012 the ICANN Board, acting through its New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), acknowledged receipt of the GNSO’s recommendations but decided not to change the AGB then, giving the Rationale that the public interest would be better served at that time by maintaining the status quo of a temporary moratorium;
   
   
7. At the ICANN meeting in Prague in June 2012, the GAC Communique requested that the ICANN Board provide the GAC with “further clarification as to the status of its pending request for enhanced protections [for RCRC and IOC names] at the top and second levels”;
   
   
8. On 13 September 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on second level protections of RCRC and IOC names and, if this were not concluded by 31 January 2013, that the GNSO advise the ICANN Board if there was any reason not to provide second level protections for those RCRC and IOC names already protected in the AGB at the top level, in light of all gTLDs approved in this first round of the New gTLD program;
   
   
9. On 13 December 2011 legal counsel from twenty-eight International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) sent a letter to the ICANN CEO and Board Chair, requesting that their organizations’ names and acronyms be excluded from third-party registration at both the top and second levels in the first round of the New gTLD program and until further policy could be developed for future rounds; in May 2012, these organizations published a Common Position Paper outlining the possible bases for their requested protections;
   
   
10. On 11 March 2012 the ICANN Board requested that the GAC and the GNSO provide it with “policy advice on the IGOs’ request … [to] inform ICANN in providing a meaningful response to the IGOs”;
    
    
11. On 12 April 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report as a preceding step to a possible Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine the type of international organization that should receive special protection at the top and second levels (if any), as well as the policies that should govern such protections;
    
    
12. On 1 October 2012 the Final Issue Report recommended that the GNSO initiate a PDP to determine, first, whether additional special protections were needed at the top and second levels for the names and/or acronyms of certain international organizations, namely IGOs and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) - including consideration of further protections of RCRC and IOC names - and if so, to develop policy proposals for such protections; and secondly, to include within the PDP an evaluation of whether such policies should also extend to existing gTLDs;
    
    
13. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council passed a Resolution launching an expedited PDP (which would become the IGO-INGO PDP) to address the issues described in the Final Issue Report;
    
    
14. On 26 November 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on top and second level protections for IGOs and INGOs and, if this work were not concluded by 28 February 2013, that the GNSO advise the Board of any reason it should consider in including IGO names and acronyms that satisfy certain specific criteria on a Reserved Names List applicable to all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD program;
    
    
15. On 20 December 2012 the GNSO Council adopted a further set of three of the Drafting Team’s recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the second level, pending the outcome of the recently-launched PDP, and communicated these decisions to the GAC;
    
    
16. On 28 February 2013 the GNSO Council Chair sent a letter to the NGPC Chair in response to the NGPC’s November Resolution, indicating that the GNSO’s PDP was addressing the issues raised by the NGPC;
    
    
17. On 22 March 2013 the GAC requested that the ICANN Board provide second level protections of names and acronyms of certain IGOs according to specific criteria;
    
    
18. On 14 June 2013 the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group published its draft Initial Report for public comment;
    
    
19. At the ICANN meeting in Durban in July 2013 the GAC through its Communique further refined its 22 March 2013 request concerning second level protection for IGO acronyms
    
    
20. On 20 September 2013 the Working Group published its draft Final Report for public comment, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Initial Report;
    
    
21. On [ __ November 2013] the Working Group published its Final Report and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report;
    
    
22. The Working Group’s Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various Working Group members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration.

...