<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all- thanks very much Jeff for taking the lead on this and also
other Councillors for the substantive comments. I agree with this
broad approach.
Joy
On 12/12/2012 5:46 a.m., Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Thanks Jeff,
>
>
>
> History ? Concise summary of key dates and events (picking up from
> Mason?s previous work). Any volunteers?
>
>
>
> I do not believe a motion is required. We seem to be moving
> towards consensus on the substantial points on list.
>
> I?d like to work with you on refining the text (since my name will
> be on it!) but that will be about minor details AOT substance.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:*Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] *Sent:* 11
> December 2012 15:13 *To:* Jonathan Robinson;
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* RE: [council] Proposed Response
> to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I am fine with having the history in an appendix if someone can
> draft that up. With respect to the ?misunderstanding? language, I
> am also fine with removing that language as well.
>
>
>
> Jonathan, are we going to need a motion to approve the letter? I
> don?t believe we do. But, if we do, then we need to draft it by
> tomorrow to get it on the agenda, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business
> Affairs*
>
>
>
> *From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
> Robinson *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:45 AM *To:*
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Subject:*
> RE: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th
> Letter
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Good contributions from various Councillors. Great to see. Thanks
> all for getting fully engaged with this important issue.
>
>
>
> My reading is that we now have to resolve a couple of substantial
> points before fine-tuning the draft. I believe that the points are
> as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. Do we include the history? If so where? I think I am in
> favour but as a factual summary of key points in an appendix /
> second page. The motivation is to put it on record and as
> background or context for this reply. I suspect that many
> (including in the GAC) will read this exchange in isolation and not
> have a good grasp on the history.
>
> 2. Policy v Implementation? Agree with Thomas that we
> should state our view politely and clearly but not suggest that we
> may not understand accurately. Perhaps here an invitation to the
> GAC to provide their view by contributing it to any future work
> (working group) that looks into this? Here I should note that I
> suspect that the GAC feels that it is able to participate and
> contribute, but not necessarily at the WG level in the same way as
> many of us do.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to support 1 & 2 above or disagree / re-iterate
> your view. Also, please comment if I have missed any substantial
> points.
>
> Thereafter, I think we should proceed to fine-tuning the draft.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Thomas
> Rickert *Sent:* 11 December 2012 09:41 *To:* David Cake *Cc:*
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Subject:*
> Re: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th
> Letter
>
>
>
> David and Mason,
>
> your point regarding the GAC is well understood. I will not try to
> convince you of my proposal, but let me explain that I made the
> proposal since I would very much like to hear the GAC's view on
> this. That does not mean that this view is going to be adopted by
> us. Also, getting input on the GAC's understanding of the
> demarkation of policy vs implementation helps us understand the GAC
> better and maybe respond to that to improve the working
> relationshipo.
>
>
>
> Anyway, even if the group wishes not to ask the GAC for its view,
> please amend the language so it does not say that we might
> misunderstand something. I think we should not populate the idea
> that we might be wrong as I truly believe that this is not the
> case.
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 11.12.2012 um 08:27 schrieb David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>
>
>
> I admire the very non-confrontational yet clear tone of the letter
> - I don't think I'd be able to manage that tone on this issue.
> Thank you Jeff.
>
>
>
> I'm fine with the descriptions of the specific issue here, clearly
> setting out that there are numerous specific issues not addressed
> in the GACs advice etc.
>
>
>
> Like Mason, I'm not sure we should ask the GAC for its
> determination of policy vs implementation, for a wide range of
> reasons. As Mason points out, a decision being 'implementation'
> isn't necessarily grounds for excluding policy making structures
> such as the GNSO from decision making.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/12/2012, at 6:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> In the past few days, a few of us at Neustar have been thinking
> about a proposed response to the November 28^th letter from the
> GAC to the GNSO on the determination to initiate a PDP on the
> protection of names of international organizations. Given that we
> should be drafting a response, we took a stab at coming up with a
> first draft to get your input on.
>
> This is just a first draft, but one which we believe sets the
> right non-confrontational tone on some issues that we know are
> sensitive to a number of GAC members (and ICANN community members
> alike). We have also taken a stab at defining how policy
> development has traditionally applied to ICANN activities before
> the whole onslaught of new gTLD issues.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on this letter and whether this
> serves as a good starting point to finalize a response.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> Dear Madam Chair:
>
>
>
> I am writing in response to your letter dated 28 November 2012
> seeking information about the GNSO?s determination to initiate a
> Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of the names of
> international organizations ?in all gTLDs.?
>
>
>
> We are not aware of a bright line test to distinguish ?policy?
> from ?implementation? in general, or in the ICANN context, and
> believe that this question might benefit from further review and
> consideration within ICANN?s multi-stakeholder processes. For
> purposes of responding to your letter, however, the term ?policy
> development? has traditionally applied to ICANN?s consideration of
> an issue that is within the scope of ICANN?s mission statement and
> involves developing an approach that (1) is broadly applicable to
> multiple situations or organizations; (2) is likely to have lasting
> value of applicability; (3) will establish a guide or framework for
> future decision-making; and/or (4) implicates or affects an
> existing ICANN policy. The ICANN Board, the ICANN staff, and the
> GNSO has each concluded at different points that the question of
> enhanced protections for international governmental organizations
> (?IGO?s?) and international non-governmental organizations
> (?INGO?s?) at the top and second level meets the criteria described
> above.
>
>
>
> We do not dispute the validity of the GAC?s advice to the ICANN
> Board in May 2011 regarding protections for the International
> Olympic Committee (?IOC?) and the Red Cross/Red Crescent (?RC/RC?)
> names, nor do we dispute the fact that ICANN received preliminary
> legal advice that some 60 countries protect certain intellectual
> properties of the IOC and RC/RC. We note, however, that most such
> laws ? like the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic
> Symbol itself - provide exceptions for non-commercial uses,
> pre-existing commercial uses, and certain geographic references,
> among other things. (To our knowledge, however, these laws would
> not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations
> on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party
> registrations.) In any case, policy development is needed to
> determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e., for pre-existing,
> non-commercial, and/or geographic use) should apply in the domain
> name context ? particularly at the second level and in both new and
> existing TLDs.
>
>
>
> Likewise, we do not dispute the validity of the GAC?s advice in
> Toronto with respect to the use of the current .int registration
> requirements as a starting basis for protection of IGO names and
> acronyms. We also appreciate your point that this advice is
> ?complementary? to the provision of the Applicant Guidebook
> permitting use of the .int registration criteria as the basis for
> IGOs to file a Legal Rights Objection to a new gTLD application.
> We do not understand, however, how a prohibition of even
> non-infringing uses of an IGO?s acronym at the first or second
> level is merely an implementation of the Legal Rights Objection
> policy, which provides for an independent panel to determine
> whether an applicant?s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would
> be likely to infringe the objector?s existing IGO name or acronym.
> The views and perspectives of various participants in this
> discussion, including those of the Governmental Advisory Committee,
> have evolved over time ? including quite recently.
>
>
>
> The GNSO believes that the issues identified above fall within the
> definition of ?policy? used by ICANN. We understand, of course,
> that the policy development process can be time consuming. We
> also understand that some may view resort to policy development as
> a delaying or blocking tactic. With respect to the question of
> enhanced protections for international governmental organizations,
> however, the GNSO has attempted to find practical solutions to
> ensure that reasonable protections are in place during the pendency
> of the policy discussions. That approach is reflected in the ICANN
> Board?s recent resolutions to create a moratorium on registration
> of certain names at the second level pending this policy work.
>
> Perhaps we are misunderstanding the distinction between ?policy?
> and ?implementation? drawn by the GAC, and, as previously stated,
> the GNSO Council would welcome further dialogue on this point.
> Meanwhile, we do take seriously our obligation to respond in a
> collaborative, timely and transparent way when policy development
> is necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business
> Affairs* 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 *Office:**
> *+1.571.434.5772 *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079 *Fax: *+1.703.738.7965
> */* jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> */*
> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas
> Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert
> Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer /
> CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn
>
> Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49
> (0)228 74 898 - 0
>
> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt,
> Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
>
> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
>
> mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> skype-id:
> trickert web: www.anwaelte.de <http://www.anwaelte.de>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQx6S8AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq5MwH/0l0CYy+HEP8wTUdfGLtwM/t
G62fm0D6Y8h3EhKL1R3BuS654Xfn5iAks3tSy8Ms6He/sJYiAUlK926v1tdq65B8
gjzuaaUr9QrCa0Ent7tgJRH8tMoWBX1VMhxVte+0YVstgxCFEun92TWaZGvjkopr
A6dCLfbmFyKQuc5FHSE9bjdt+y5kYa8hWIFISHT0FAxX7Fe5z7em3jIuAPYy9Wji
t+XnlByC3N2cHdBnlSjd/E8u/j+mYGkrt7Ln1JcK/sC9MpXqy9FVTm8fDHWwWzRc
3GbAmIUj8kkYyQtCVsNSx5ltrD2i/BuY5Qn2bhwd/j3HghyB3Orac4BfZ43rHv4=
=1u6R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|