<<<
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
>>>
|