Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion.
As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see
made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration. I know that some
have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them
on, but that is not the way I read the rules. Perhaps we need a legal
I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and
reconsideration. My problem is sending them on with prior council
approval and I think that is what the current rules demand.
Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion. Is it a majority
issue since it is not otherwise defined?
On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote:
> The relevant Procedures:
>> 16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved
>> Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at
>> any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:
>> 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should
>> be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or
>> 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted
>> for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days;
>> 3. The GNSO
>> Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a
>> Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council
>> policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been
>> implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a
>> new PDP on the issue.
> I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the
> amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG
> needs to either accept of reject. I do not see the procedure as
> allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed.
> I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept. I also must
> say I do not see any new
> evidence or arguments.
> In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever
> make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the
> first place.
> Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion? Majority? Super
> Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would
> not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to look
> at the subject after we have completed the project.
> On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please
>> find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the
>> Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation
>> to possibly modifying the GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC
>> and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter
>> of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed
>> modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the
>> reconvened WG and including some background information such as the
>> actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a
>> comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the
>> proposed modifications side by side.
>> This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in
>> preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the
>> motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this
>> London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council
>> to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible
>> Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the
>> recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of
>> time we thought it important for you to be able to review these
>> Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at
>> such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
>> 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent
>> meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having
>> spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was
>> wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are
>> sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the
>> misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the
>> recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing
>> note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC
>> could consider this for its communiqué.
>> *** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we
>> would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the
>> next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question.
>> 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of
>> June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide
>> notice to the organization in question is offered for the
>> designations in question whenever such designation has been
>> registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a
>> 90 days claims service.
>> The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during
>> the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so,
>> the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider
>> this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to
>> stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short
>> period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would
>> not be a PDP.
>> 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to
>> enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures
>> for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names
>> and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the
>> PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting
>> on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to
>> potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the
>> aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights
>> protection mechanisms was already included in the set of
>> recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While
>> the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in
>> place, as the NGPC confirmed.
>> We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Any thoughts or suggestions?
>> Best, Thomas
>> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas
>> Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers
>> ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen
>> Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>> Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln
>> Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 -
>> 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert@xxxxxx <mailto:thomas.rickert@xxxxxx> Web:
>> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer:
>> Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver
>> Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix
>> Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: