ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
  • From: "Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:38:58 -0700
  • Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EC6B0314B@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac0fm5EUtCCMBdjQQBCn6k0EuYKOhQDngPVOAACtjqsAABKrPw==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

No objection to the discussion at all, Jeff.  I'm aware of the request re 
second level, though speaking personally the same philosophy holds for me.  
Looking forward to the discussion on the DT.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 4/25/2012 4:36 PM
To: Mason Cole; 'William Drake'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

Your statement is true only at the top level and ignores the bulk of the GAC 
request which relates to the second level.  The GNSO has yet to make any 
recommendations nor respond to the GAC with regards to second level 
protections.  This is why I have asked for this item to be a "discussion".  I 
am not saying that the GNSO should accept of reject the GAC recommendations at 
the second level, but we need to at least give those recommendations some 
analysis.  Whether that is through the GNSO directly or through a drafting team 
is the real item up for discussion.

I strongly suggest we lay the facts on the table at the Council meeting and 
have a productive conversation on the next call.


Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc:     council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting 

All --

What I read is this:

- The GAC asked for protections for IOC/RC
- The GNSO Council voted to recommend to the board to provide protections in 
time for first round
- The Board declined
- The IOC/RC DT work is concluded

- We want to keep the DT in place to a) communicate to the GAC on behalf of the 
GNSO, and b) pick up work on the now passed IGO motion

- We disband the IOC/RC DT and form a new DT to address the IGO issue later

In any case, I believe we should communicate to the GAC.  I would like the 
GNSO's position on record that we supported their request on the basis of their 
representation that IOC/RC have special protections above the level of those 
afforded IGOs and others.  I don't know if others are willing to sign on to 
that position, but I believe it is important to get across.  ICANN is already 
receiving other requests for all manner of protection, and boundaries should be 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of William Drake
Sent: Sat 4/21/2012 1:46 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

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..


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


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

                                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 
                So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide 
                Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://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 
                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 
                - 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: 
 (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: 
                Thanks and cheers
                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 >>>