<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
Councillors,
The Board rationale for the IOC/RC resolution has now been provided. Please see
here:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT
Le 19 avr. 2012 à 04:26, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>
> 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
>>>
|