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 issues: Principles of International Law.  NCSG supports this name for the issue.

2.2.4) The NCSG 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 believes 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 supports 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 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:

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.

12) We think we support the Board, and we do so in so far as the Board is supporting the REC6 recommendations on sensitive strings.

---

Disagree with Board response

4.2) Strong support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 as it goes beyond the role of ICANN 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.  The GAC request as well as the 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.

11.2.1) Strong Support in the NCSG for marking this as a 2 because of the difficulty in categorizing strings.

11.3) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 becasue of serious privacy concerns.

11.4) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 because is is outside of ICANN's scope.

11.5) Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 2 becasue of serious privacy concerns.

11.6)  Strong support in the NCSG for marking as a 1B to insure that implementations are done in accordance with privacy standards.

---

Table

---