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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,

Consent agenda items are for items for which a motion is proposed and for items 
that do not require discussion and can be disposed of quickly.  This is clearly 
an item that requires discussion even if a motion does get proposed,  If we 
decide to abandon the group, which is an option, then we need to discuss what 
our response to the GAC will be.  If we continue the group, then we will need 
to discuss the parameters of the group and the relationship to the pdp being 
commenced.  

Best regards,



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Friday, April 20, 2012 07:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Neuman, Jeff
Cc:     '<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject:        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
>       
>       
>       
>