<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
Stephane is correct that the status document is not one that needs to be put
out for public comment as it is an informal document.
That said, the recommendations 1-3 in the report are recommendations from the
Drafting Team that we do want feedback on for the Costa Rica meeting and it is
those recommendations that in theory would be put before the Council at that
time (not the report).
I would strongly encourage everyone to get feedback on those recommendations
ASAP from your constituencies, stakeholder groups, ACs, etc. This is not a new
request as Drafting Team members have been doing this all along. Circumstances
here are not perfect. No one is going to argue with that. We all wish we have
more time, but we do not. The GAC has asked us to comment on their proposal to
us in September with the intention of it being implemented at the top-level in
this round and we should all strive to do that.
It would be disappointing to the Drafting Team if we could not get past the
procedural issues at the council level when the Drafting Team has worked so
hard to come with a solution that actually works for the parties involved. So
we all know what the procedural issues are. The Drafting Team would really
appreciate any comments on the substance.
I want to personally thank the Drafting Team for their work so far and we will
continue to work through this issues irrespective of what happens at the
Council level.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:42 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status
Report
Agree on both counts Chuck. My point here is that this is not something that
has come out of the DT. This is a document that Jeff drafted in his own time,
following a request from the GAC to have some supporting documentation.
To me, putting such a document out for public comment would be a step too far
from standard procedure.
Stéphane
Le 29 févr. 2012 à 22:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Moreover, it is not without precedent for WG's to request comments on their
work before they are finished.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:29 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status
Report
Thanks for the clarification, Stephane - I'd asked precisely because it
occurred to me that having a formal public comment period for this report would
not be possible for a number of reasons. That said, and assuming the Council
will be asked to vote on one/some/all recommendation(s) in Costa Rica, I can
foresee problems ahead if, for instance, the Council votes then to approve
certain permanent protections for this and future gTLD rounds based on
recommendations made by other than a formal GNSO Working Group.
I would think that a few of my Council colleagues would either share my
concerns or have some of their own. If so, and assuming we agree that should
this topic come up for a vote in Costa Rica our normal deferral process would
be the worst thing we could do in terms of responsiveness to the GAC, then we
need to find ways to get feedback on the actual recommendation(s) from all the
community, in addition to input on the various options/issues they may have
already given to the DT during the discussion process.
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<mailto: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<mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx>. For more
information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit
law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>
>>>
From:
Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
To:
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
CC:
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date:
2/29/2012 4:18 PM
Subject:
Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
There is no official comment period planned for this. This is an unofficial
report drafted by Jeff to help with an upcoming call, and not a document of the
DT.
It should therefore not be put out for public comment.
Stéphane
Le 29 févr. 2012 à 21:34, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Thanks Mary. The document is "out for public comment" now. I would love for
it to be formally out, but some may argue that takes an act of Council. We
have a very limited time frame here and have had valuable input from each
constituency and stakeholder group already and continue to get more.
Can ICANN staff put this on their page? Any help would be appreciated.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:25 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
Thanks, Jeff and everyone on the DT, for some marvelously quick and detailed
work, and for a very clear and concise report.
Question - will this be put out for "official" public comment? I ask partly
because of the possibility that the Council will be asked to vote on at least
some part of the report in Costa Rica, and also because the recommendations
pertain to protections that will also apply to future new gTLD rounds.
As many of you know, I definitely support a closer, better and more responsive
working relationship with the GAC; however, even leaving aside issues with the
process by which this particular issue came to the table and has now to be
resolved, I remain concerned about ad-hoc work under the heading of
"implementation" that isn't so much a natural follow-up to the GNSO's own
policy recommendations (i.e. in this case the 2007 report on new gTLDs) but
which could change or conflict with them. I know this issue was raised during
this particular DT's discussions, as was the issue of precedent-setting, so I'm
glad we're watchful for these risks. This might, however, buttress the argument
that at the very least, a public comment be instituted prior to any vote/action.
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<mailto: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<mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx>.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please
visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>
>>>
From:
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
To:
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%20>
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%20> "
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
CC:
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date:
2/28/2012 11:43 PM
Subject:
[council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
FYI. Please circulate amongst your constituencies, stakeholder groups and
Advisory Committees.
From: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:38 PM
To: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>;
mark.carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mark.carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
SRadell@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:SRadell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
Neuman, Jeff
Subject: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report
Heather, Mark and Suzanne,
As promised, please find enclosed a status report from the Chair of the IOC/RC
Drafting Team of the GNSO Council that has been tasked with advising the GNSO
Council with respect to the September 2011 GAC proposal on permanently
protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second levels for new
gTLDs. Although this report was shared with the members of the Drafting Team,
it was drafted by me as the Chair, and as such is not an official report from
the Drafting Team. It represents the Chair's current understanding of the
discussions of the Drafting Team. Each of the recommendations addressed in
this report are still under review by the GNSO Community. We are providing
this report to assist in the discussions between the Drafting Team, interested
GNSO Councilors and GAC members on March 2, 2012.
Please feel free to forward this report to the other members of the GAC as I
will be sending this to the GNSO Council as well. We look forward to a
productive call this Friday as well as in Costa Rica at the ICANN meeting.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|