Page History
...
This constitutes support for the Board's postion on over 85% of the issues/.
NCSG Additional Comments on some supported items
1.) The NCSG did not agree with the Staff designated name for this REC6 issue: “Limited Public Interest Objections.” The Rec6 report indicated a strong support for calling these issues: Principles of International Law. NCSG supports this name for the issue.
...
6.1.2) NCSG wishes to point out the that the GAC postion runs against the recommendations of the the GNSO, the IRT and the STI.
...
11.1) The NCSG shares the Board's concern about the various definitions of criminal behavior.
Replies that relate to several of the GAC issues, including: 2.2.5, 8.1.1.1, 8.1.4
While the NCSG has not taken a postion on whether the GAC should be exempt from paying the fee for making objection, the NCSG supports the following:
...
6.1.1) The NCSG points out that this goes back to scope defined in the IRT, which was rejected by the STI. The GAC request, as well as the Board response are Board response, are unclear as to the scope of Intellectual Property and taken literally this would too broad.
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) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as this equates default with a presumption of guilt.
6.2.10.3) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2, as this equates default with a presumption of guilt.
6.2.12) There was a specific agreement in the STI that the URS would be limited to locking. This critical difference from the UDRP was how the URS was originally framed.
...
11.4) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 because is 2 because it is outside of ICANN's scope.
...
11.6) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 1B to insure that implementations are done in accordance with privacy standards.
...
Minority Postions
...
| Panel |
|---|
The following is the NPOC, a proposed constituency within the NCSG, position on Section 6: For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes standardized exams. Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure these tools are made available as best as possible. Specifically we are pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute its missions and important work. Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New gTLD Scorecard. We need these tools, such as the TrademarkClearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse. While we recognize these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible. Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable. We request the Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations as you move forward in your consultations. |
...
