Re: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mary,

Please see my earlier note on Thomas' motion.  For the Council to "take the 
bait" does exactly what you have decried -- make us less relevant.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:04 PM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Coincidentally, the NCSG was going to propose a motion very similar to the 
> one Thomas has just proposed. Our proposed motion is the product of consensus 
> between both constituencies of the NCSG (i.e. NCUC & NPOC). As I said, it is 
> very similar to Thomas' and so it may well be more productive if Thomas and 
> we discussed the issue with a view toward combining or amending his. 
> Due to the fact that all motions have to be in by today, however, and since 
> it will be very difficult for the relevant office-holders from both NCUC and 
> NPOC to convene to discuss this before COB today, I thought it best to submit 
> the full text of NCSG's proposed motion for now (see below).
>  
> Thomas, let's find a time to discuss if possible. Thanks!
>  
> "Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for 
> the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's 
> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) 
> Drafting Team;
> 
> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on 
> associated policies relating to protections for certain international 
> organizations at the second level;
> 
> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included 
> requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same 
> protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds 
> of the new gTLD program,
> 
> And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights 
> for such organizations based on standards such as "international legal 
> Ppersonality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San José, Costa Rica,
> 
> Now therefore be it resolved,
> 
> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP 
> that covers the following issues:
> 
> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special 
> protection at the top and second level, including under a "international 
> legal personality" test;
> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second 
> level; and
> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the 
> GNSO."
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 
>  
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:   "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/4/2012 2:05 PM
> Subject:      [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection 
> of names and acronyms of IGOs
> Stéphane, all,
> please find below a motion that I had already announced in Costa Rica.
> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas
> 
> Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of 
> IGOs
> 
> Whereas the ICANN Board has granted protection for the Red Cross and the IOC 
> until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global interest in 
> its resolution of June 20, 2011 (2011.06.20.01);
> 
> Whereas a drafting team of the GNSO Council was established to look at 
> additional top and second level protections for the IOC and the Red Cross/Red 
> Crescent movement in the current round of new gTLDs in response to a GAC 
> proposal based on the June 20, 2011 Board resolution;
> 
> Whereas the drafting team is limited to reviewing only top and second level 
> protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement;
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council and the GAC were asked in the letter dated March 11, 
> 2012 by the ICANN Board to provide policy advice in response to a letter 
> dated December 13, 2011 from intergovernmental Organizations on the 
> protection of additional International Governmental Organization (IGO) names 
> and acronyms both on the top and second level;
> 
> Whereas it is possible that more organizations might request special 
> protection both at the top as well as at the second level for the first and 
> subsequent rounds of applications for generic TLDs.
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT:
> 
> 
> Resolved, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on protection of names 
> and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs.
> 
> 
> ***
> Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
> 
> Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
> www.anwaelte.de
> 
> Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
> www.eco.de
> 
> 
> 
>