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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

I can't help noticing that this sounds rather similar to a statement that was 
described in SJ as a slap in the GAC's face, the end of the GNSO Council, and 
an impediment to life saving work….

Bill


On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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
>> 
>