Versions Compared

Old Version 9

changes.mady.by.user de saint gery

Saved on

compared with

New Version 10

changes.mady.by.user de saint gery

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • ** Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an IOC organization with a name protected as a “String Ineligible for Delegation” to apply for its protected string at the top level;
  • ** Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an IOC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level.  For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.

    C.     In relation to IGOs:
  • ** Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow the specified IGO with a name protected as a “String Ineligible for Delegation” to apply for its protected string at the top level;
    • ** Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow a specified IGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level.  For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
    • ** To the extent that in the current round Second Level, Exact Match Scope 2 identifiers for the Acronyms of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be added to the TMCH, and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program, these identifiers will similarly be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds. 

      D.     In relation to INGOs:
  • ** Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an INGO with a name protected as a “String Ineligible for Delegation” to apply for its protected name at the top level;
  • ** To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow a specified INGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level.  For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation, if approved, will be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
  • ** Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers (unless otherwise protected) of protected INGOs and Scope 2 identifiers of protected INGOs (all as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD.  For the current round, the names subject to this recommendation are to be added to the TMCH, and the protected organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD program.

    3. The GNSO Council adopts the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group that apply to all four categories of identifiers and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board: 
  • ** At the Top Level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs under consideration in this PDP shall not be considered as “Strings Ineligible for Delegation”; and
  • ** At the Second level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGO under consideration in this PDP shall not be withheld from registration. For the current round of New gTLDs, the temporary protections extended to the acronyms subject to this recommendation shall be removed from the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.

    4. The GNSO Council notes that the Working Group recommends that the following Consensus recommendations also apply to existing gTLD registries, and accordingly the GNSO Council recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
  • ** Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC at the Second Level (Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the Working Group’s Final Report);

  • ** Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC at the Second Level (Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the Working Group’s Final Report);

  • ** Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of IGOs at the Second Level (Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the Working Group’s Final Report); and

  • **To the extent that Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of INGOs are withheld from registration at the Second Level (meaning that in the current round they are placed in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement), existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommendations adopted for an exception procedure (Section 3.4.3 of the Working Group’s Final Report) that will allow an INGO with a name withheld from registration to apply for its protected name at the second level.

    5. ** The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/issue-template-request-form-18nov13-en.pdf) on the Working Group’s Consensus recommendation 3.5.3, which states: “The [Working Group] recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.”  This Issue Report is anticipated as a preceding step toward the possibility of initiating a PDP on this issue, and the Issue Report shall also address how these matters can or cannot be incorporated into the forthcoming review of the UDRP;
    6. ** The GNSO Council shall convene an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN staff in developing the implementation details relating to the recommendations adopted herein should they be approved by the ICANN Board, including the Principles of Implementation highlighted by the Working Group in Section 3.7 of its Final Report and any Exception Procedures to be developed. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board and is expected to work with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or any need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to the members of the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group.

    7. The GNSO Council recommends that:

(a) ### To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 and Second Level, Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers for the specified RCRC organizations (as defined in the Final Report) are added to the TMCH, the specified organizations will be permitted to participate in any sunrise registration process developed for the New gTLD program, and the specified organizations will similarly be eligible to participate in any sunrise registration process developed for the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds.

...

(c) ### To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) added to the TMCH, the specified organizations will be permitted to participate in any sunrise registration process developed for the New gTLD program, and the specified organizations will similarly be eligible to participate in any sunrise registration process developed for the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds.]

 

...



DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION - Time permitting

...