RE: [council] Prague - please read!

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jeff - sorry for lack of clarity but my reference to the
reconsideration request was more of an FYI to the Council in thinking
through whether the IGO issue should be raised with the GAC.
 
Actually, I'm a little disturbed by a number of assertions, assumptions
and inaccuracies in the reconsideration request. For example, reference
is made interchangeably to Olympic "names", "marks" and the "goodwill of
the Olympic movement" as all protected by law. Some of these terms are
narrower and more specific than others, and while each may be protected
by some national laws, we don't at this point know that the broadest
term (goodwill of the movement) is protected by how many countries' laws
(especially since the international treaty in question protects the
Olympic "symbol" only).
 
Also, reference is made to the fact that "the GAC and the GNSO" worked
out the recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council. As we know, the GAC
does not participate in any WG or DT in its own right, nor do individual
GAC members do so as such (i.e. they do not represent their respective
countries or the GAC as a whole). There's also an implicit assumption
that "consensus" and "majority vote" of the Council mean the same thing
(i.e. both terms are used in the appeal).
 
Except for the first point about names versus marks versus the entire
Olympic movement, which alarms me as an IP lawyer about the broad extent
of trademark protection that seems to be claimed, I don't think the
other two points were anything other than inadvertent inaccuracies. I
wanted, however, to raise them all with you and will likely do so with
the DT as well.
 
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 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>>> 


From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:"mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/11/2012 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Prague - please read!

To follow up Mary’s e-mail, here is the reconsideration request she is
referring to.  I agree the IGOs should be on the GAC discussion (though
not sure the reconsideration request is of any relevance to the GAC).  
 
 
 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs



 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:07 PM
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read!

 

Hi, Thomas' list looks good (though I should say I've not consulted
NCSG colleagues and members so this is a somewhat personal view).

 

For the Board, I assume our concerns center on transparency as well as
effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are
considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of
ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the
budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on?

 

For the GAC, do we want to discuss their views on the IGO issue,
especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration
of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB?

 

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 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
>>> 



From: 
Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To:
Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

CC:
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 
5/11/2012 5:10 AM

Subject: 
Re: [council] Prague - please read!

Stéphane,

I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could
be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch.

 

For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to
co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources.

Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible)
how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the
public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting
abuse.

 

With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion
what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and
structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k
new TLDs.

 

In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved
for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the
Council decide to pick up these ideas. 

 

Thanks,

Thomas

 

Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:





Councillors,

I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things
in preparation for our Prague week:

1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and
2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.

As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under
greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff
have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR
agenda that people complained about there).

I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered
(or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) )
to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure
working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational
nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on
the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.

So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas
for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other
groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of
Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have
greater meaning for the Council as a whole.

Thanks for your help in this endeavor.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT


 

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law
firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de