ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


That's exactly why we've introduced the consent agenda: for items that do not 
require resolutions, but that the Council wishes to mark its approval for.

So this is clearly a consent agenda item.

Stéphane



Le 20 avr. 2012 à 13:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> This is not a consent agenda item, but rather a discussion item.  It didn't 
> need a resolution to start this drafting team and if is the willow the 
> council to either continue this group or even abandon the group, it would not 
> need a resolution of the council to do so,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 04:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc:   'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting 
> Team
> 
> I agree that the question of keeping the DT active should be addressed by the 
> Council.
> 
> I am happy to add that to our next meeting's agenda, as a consent agenda 
> item, but it may be helpful if this discussion is started on the list before 
> the meeting.
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
> 
> Le 19 avr. 2012 à 05:15, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
> écrit :
> 
> 
>       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
>       
>       
>       
> 





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