ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

  • To: Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:45:25 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <4A09C267.884C.005B.0@piercelaw.edu>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcnTpyiLZ/CPxUdw8UqYQ4m/00Immw==
  • Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

Thanks Mary for your feedback.

As I’ve just bored everyone to tears with a long email to Kristina, I won’t
start again here ;-)

As indicated in that email, I will try to incorporate Kristina’s, Chuck’s
and you comments as best I can in a modified draft which I will circulate to
the list asap.



Le 13/05/09 00:39, « Mary Wong » <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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
> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>