ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>