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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary and Thomas.

As Chair:

Since both motions are, as you rightly point out Mary, very similar, I suggest 
we should not consider them both. They have both been included in the draft 
agenda for now, in order to ensure we do not miss anything, but I would urge 
you and Thomas to find some common ground ahead of our meeting next week.

As registrar rep:

I would suggest that Thomas' motion is more in line with what is needed in 
terms of wording (both motions seek to do the same thing, so please understand 
that my comments are on form, not content). Your motion Mary mentions things 
that seem redundant to me because they are inherent in any issue report 
process. What I mean for example is that staff will always analyze whether an 
issue is, or isn't, within scope for the GNSO. So why point this out 
specifically?

My personal opinion:

What I do feel is missing from both motions is a whereas clause pointing to the 
original GNSO PDP on new gTLDs, which did not set aside any specific 
protections for any single applicant. I feel it is important to remind the 
community, through a whereas clause of this kind, that to some extent being 
directed by the Board to add protections later on is a circumvention of the 
original PDP.

Perhaps an initial whereas reading something like the below?

Whereas on (insert date) the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP 
on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special 
protection to specific applicants.

Stéphane



Le 5 avr. 2012 à 20:47, John Berard a écrit :

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>