<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
Agree with Jeff, discussion is merited.
Best,
Bill
On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|