RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for adding the clarifications, Jeff - you're right that I'd assumed that 
some of the options would be obvious. 

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: 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. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 


>>> 


From:  
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"'mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
4/18/2012 10:29 PM 

Subject:  
RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team 


Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that 
clarification is needed.

I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, 
but not stated.  Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this 
group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe 
that the DT could still continue.  Even if ultimately a new group were formed 
in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP 
process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the 
Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response 
to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011.   Whether or not we keep the 
drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is 
now over 7 months old.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be 
out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting.  This would be when 
the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The 
GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names.


So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

Dear Councilors,

A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall 
was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate 
an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding 
specific protections for the IOC and RCRC.

In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO 
Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests 
clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its 
discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations.

Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal 
charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in 
the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some 
in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for 
second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the 
Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction.

Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming 
a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's 
rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue 
Report process (or both).

Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question?

FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are:

- The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on 
whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be 
given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD 
program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204;

- The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this 
time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the 
adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
 (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203); and

- The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive 
registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider 
whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should 
be undertaken: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm.

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