RE: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Stephane and Council colleagues,
 
Like Kristina I'm in the middle of the IRT meeting, and as such I
apologize that I haven't had the chance to consider the issue in greater
depth. 
 
First, I fully support the basic premises and fundamental principles
expressed in the letter, in particular the concerns regarding special
treatment and privileged access. My specific concern is thus not one of
principle.
 
As Kristina has mentioned, the IRT's Draft Report recommends a Globally
Protected Marks List (for globally-recognized, registered trademarks) as
well as a Uniform Rapid Suspension system for abusive registrations. The
nature, procedures and objectives behind these are extremely different
from the GAC's proposal regarding geographical names; however, I'm
slightly concerned that my being on the IRT could be perceived by some
as inconsistent with (and potentially detrimental to) the Council's
response to the GAC.
 
I'd be happy if more experienced heads than mine think this concern is
overstated; on the other hand, if that is not the case, is it possible
to express support for the general position stated in the letter without
approving the specific comments therein?
 
Thanks and cheers,
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 

>>> "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 5/12/2009 6:22 PM >>>
Hi Stephane,
 
Sure.
 
1.  If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I
have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the
leadership of the IPC.  I have not had the opportunity to do that and
will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after
May 20).  
 
2.  It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be
treated as any other objector.  As a practical matter, issues of
sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively
preclude governments from participating in the objection process.
 
3.  The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List.  It's not a
reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. 
Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's 
proposal.
 
4.  The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for
which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear
support of the IRT proposals.
 
Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the
letter would result in my supporting it.  I have no objection to the
letter noting that I have abstained.  That would allow the letter to be
submitted and still note that I have  not supported it.  It seems like a
good compromise to me.
 
K 
 



From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

Hi Kristina,

Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would
be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.

Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then
propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with
the IRT, you may be able to agree on.

Let me know if that helps.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

I can't support this letter.  Because I am in the middle of the IRT's
3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language.  Given
these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless
wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van
Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC


Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified  to take Edmon’s
comments into account.

Stéphane


Le 12/05/09  15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder »
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> a  écrit :

 
Edmon,

Ì think that is a very useful  suggestion, thank you. As the clock is
running, I am copying this to the  Council list.

I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft  accordingly unless
anyone  objects.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 12/05/09 12:25,  « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a  écrit :

 
sorry for the late response... I do see that the  48 hr clock started
clicking so did not want to send this to the council  list unless you
feel comfortable about it...
 
you had:  " No such  restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD
registries and we feel it would  be
inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce  new
contractual
obligations previously not requested or deemed  necessary."
 
I don't think that is entirely true... in our  contract and in all the
ones in the s round, there is a  clause:
"All geographic and geopolitical names contained in  the ISO 3166-1
list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both  the second
level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the  Registry
Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved  both
in English and in all related official languages as may be directed  by
ICANN or the GAC."
 
What this effectively means is that  registries have had to use the
other ISO lists previously already to  produce the  "reserved both in
English and in all related official  languages" part.
 
Then of course there is the other part in  the agreement that says:
"In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve  names of territories,
distinct geographic locations, and other geographic  and geopolitical
names as ICANN may direct from time to  time."
 
Would like to suggest edits as  follows:
 
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD  registries in this
regard, especially with regards to those adopted for  the sTLD round of
gTLDs.  We feel that current contractual  obligations are already
appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe  unnecessary.
 
 
Edmon
 
 
 
 
 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]  On Behalf Of Stéphane Van
Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12,  2009 4:12 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] GNSO  Council letter to the GAC

Dear  all,

In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins  wrote to
ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and  the new
gTLD process.

At our Council meeting last week, it was  decided that we should
respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a  draft. We agreed
that our response should be sent to the GAC asap,  preferably by the end
of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they  should expect a
response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.

In  order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I
submitted  my draft to the team yesterday.

The team responded very quickly in  order to meet the Council’s Friday
deadline and considered my draft “good  to go”, with one addition by
David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of  which have been included in
the draft letter we are submitting to the full  Council today (see
attached).

Could you please review and let me  know of any further changes you
would like to make, or of your approval,  so that Avri may then send the
finished letter to the GAC on  Friday.

My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher  - Avri
Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga 
Cavalli  - Tony Harris - Terry Davis – William  Drake.

Best,

Stéphane Van Gelder