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
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 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
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 a 2, as the default should not be a presumption of guilt.
6.2.10.3) The NCSG believes that this should be 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.
