RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is not a consent agenda item, but rather a discussion item.  It didn't 
need a resolution to start this drafting team and if is the willow the council 
to either continue this group or even abandon the group, it would not need a 
resolution of the council to do so,

Thanks.



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Friday, April 20, 2012 04:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:     'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject:        Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting 
Team

I agree that the question of keeping the DT active should be addressed by the 
Council.

I am happy to add that to our next meeting's agenda, as a consent agenda item, 
but it may be helpful if this discussion is started on the list before the 
meeting.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 19 avr. 2012 à 05:15, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
écrit :


        Thanks for adding the clarifications, Jeff - you're right that I'd 
assumed that some of the options would be obvious. 

        Cheers 
        Mary
        
        
        Mary W S Wong 
        Professor of Law 
        Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 
        Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
        UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: 
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the 
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
        As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with 
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New 
Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and 
now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information 
on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 
        
        
        >>> 
                        From: 
                        "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
                
                To: 
                        "'mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
                
                Date: 
                        4/18/2012 10:29 PM 
                
                Subject: 
                        RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC 
Drafting Team 
                

        Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that 
clarification is needed.
        
        I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in 
Mary's note, but not stated.  Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned 
whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs 
did believe that the DT could still continue.  Even if ultimately a new group 
were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform 
the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping 
the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its 
response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011.   Whether or not we keep 
the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which 
is now over 7 months old.
        
        The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will 
not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting.  This would be 
when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from 
when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names.
        
        
        So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide 
direction.
        
        Sent with Good (www.good.com)
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
        Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
        To:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject:[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
        
        Dear Councilors,
        
        A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll 
recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to 
formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, 
regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC.
        
        In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent 
GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests 
clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its 
discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations.
        
        Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have 
a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any 
event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events 
anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its 
deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others 
prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further 
direction.
        
        Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, 
forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the 
Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the 
Issue Report process (or both).
        
        Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question?
        
        FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are:
        
        - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report 
on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should 
be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD 
program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204;
        
        - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB 
at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the 
adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
 (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203); and
        
        - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on 
defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to 
consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second 
level" should be undertaken: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm.
        
        Thanks and cheers
        Mary
        
        
        Mary W S Wong
        Professor of Law
        Chair, Graduate IP Programs
        Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
        UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
        Two White Street
        Concord, NH 03301
        USA
        Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Phone: 1-603-513-5143
        Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
        Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584