RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

["Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,

I, for one, am a bit intrigued about the inner meaning of what you call the
"treaty route". Would that imply

 

a) all IGOs do like the Red Cross and nail the name protection in their
respective treaties

 

or

 

b) some overarching treaty for all IGOs clarifying name protection for them
all, a kind of "Paris Convention +"

 

or

 

c) something else?

 

Grateful for some clarification on this. I trust I'm not the only one that's
puzzled (and if I am, well - apologies for not getting it..)

Best regards

Olof 

 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: den 29 november 2007 23:18
To: Rosette, Kristina; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

 

David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that
the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are
his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of
treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end
run around the treaty process."

 

Chuck Gomes

 

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and
destroy/delete the original transmission." 

 

 


  _____  


From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

Chuck,

 

Given David's participation in the Joint Working Group on 2003, I've assumed
he's familiar with the underlying immunity issue that motivates the
arbitration proposal.  (For those Councilors who may not have the
institutional knowledge of the IGO issue, it's discussed in pages 12-14 of
the Issues Report.)  I, for one, would welcome alternative suggestions from
David - or anyone for that matter - that take into account the
immunity-driven limitations.

 

K

 

 

 


  _____  


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:42 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

To get some discussion going, here's some feedback received from David Maher
in the RyC, sent with David's permission.

 

"This proposal still has the fundamental flaw that it requires mandatory
ARBITRATION. It is an attempt to make ICANN a global legislative body
outside the jurisdiction of national courts. The existing UDRP provides for
a mandatory ADMINISTRATIVE proceeding and has the following escape clause
(4(k)):

Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding
requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 <BLOCKED::#4>  shall not prevent
either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of
competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory
administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is
concluded. 

If ICANN can do this, it can make law on any other subject. I don't think
we, as registries, want to subject ourselves to mandatory arbitration
(except as provided in contracts we have signed) on any subject that the
GNSO comes up with."

 

Chuck Gomes

 

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and
destroy/delete the original transmission." 

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:15 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

All, 

Attached please find the IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP, which was approved by
the IPC at its meeting this morning.  Attached also for reference is a
redline against the IGO DRP that was contained in the 28 September 2007
staff report.

The IPC believes that its proposed revised IGO DRP remedies the aspects of
the original IGO DRP that were previously identified as being of concern.  

The IPC proposed revised IGO DRP does not address - and was not intended to
address - the process by which an IGO DRP would become applicable to
existing gTLDs.   Once (or if) it does become applicable to existing gTLDs,
the proposed changes reflect a mechanism that is believed to treat existing
gTLD registrants fairly.

Kristina 

 

<<11282007 IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP.DOC>> <<Redline IPC Proposed Revised
IGO DRP against Original.DOC>>