Proposed NCSG positions on the Board response to the GAC scorecard 

Reference:  Documenting the Board/GAC Brussels consultation - 05 March 2011,  Peter Dengate Thrush

Support Board Response

2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, All of 3, 4.1, 5,

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 these issue :Principles of International Law.  NCSG support this naming.

2.2.4) The NSG recommends the wording "material detriment to the targeted community."

4.3) The NCSG would like to caution that this process might be at the cost of innovation

Replies that relate to several of the GAC issues, including: 2.2.5,

While the NCSG has not taken a postion on whether the GAC should exempt from 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.

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 it goes beyond the role of the Board to seek data on the application process itself.

6.1.1) The NCSG points out that this goes back to scope defined in the IRT, which was rejected by the STI.  To go beyond the scope and rationale of Trademarks to other types of IP like patents, copyrights or trade secrets excedes ICANN's scope.