ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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


The Board rationale for the IOC/RC resolution has now been provided. Please see 

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
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> 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 >>>