Re: [council] Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I admit to confusion about this as well.  With all due respect to the GAC, the 
IOC/RC issue has been confusing from the start.  Roughly:

Costa Rica: IOC/RC WG briefs GAC on draft protection, GAC concurs, asks board 
to act fast on GNSO recs once done.  I'm not aware that there was objection to 
a PDP recommendation then.

May 2011:  GAC tells board it's looking for "tightly drawn" IOC/RC protection 
and its aware of no other non-profit that rises to the same level of 
international protection.

Sept 2011:  GAC "advises" GNSO on which IOC/RC names to protect, characterizes 
this as implementation.

March 2012: GNSO approves top-level IOC/RC protection

April 2012:  Board votes down GNSO recommendation (rationale comes later)

April 2012:  GAC tells board it has considered request for advice on IGO 
protection; they advise no protections for IGOs for current round beyond what's 
in the guidebook

Prague:  GAC says it's considering IGO protection and will provide advice in 
July

Sept 2012: Board asks GNSO to finish IOC/RC and IGO work by Jan 31 2013

Toronto:  GAC says IGOs must be protected at top and second levels

November 2012: New TLD committee advises GNSO the board has voted to 
preemptively protect second level IOC/RC and IGO names, pending outcome of GNSO 
work


The takeaway for me is the changing nature of the GAC's communication.  I 
recognize they believe that a) all this is "implementation" and the lack of 
need for PDPs has been clear from the start, and  b) they've been clear about 
IGO protection.  I believe they do believe that and to be clear I'm not 
accusing anyone of dishonesty at all -- I think from the council's point of 
view it has not been as clear.  If I've missed something (entirely possible) 
I'm certainly open to correction.

What does seem clear is the GAC's expectation that it can and should advise the 
GNSO and have that advice generally followed.  To John's point, it's correct 
that in writing they are a board advisory group.  However, I'm sure we need a 
better model for interacting with the GAC to avoid things like the confusion 
above, and to set better methods for productive interaction.  I would be happy 
to be part of the council's effort to make that happen.






On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:

> John raises some important points in relation to the GAC's role vis a vis the 
> Council. I agree that this letter highlights the need for the GAC to appoint 
> a liaison. 
> 
> The GAC, which of course advises the Board, has asked us for the 'rationale' 
> for a Council decision. I would like to be helpful, but aside from directing 
> them to the relevant motion and its attached 'whereas' sequence, what else is 
> there? 
> 
> As to the GAC's opinion that this relates to merely an implementation issue, 
> we have all seen in the last few weeks that 'implementation issues' can be 
> policy issues, depending on the strength of one's point of view and wish to 
> see that prevail. 
> 
> As a practical matter regarding the rationale of the group of two dozen 
> people who voted, I don't see what we can provide, other than a link to the 
> motion(s) in question. Am I missing something?
> 
> Maria
> 
> On 29 November 2012 15:17, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I also agree with Jeff that defining the two terms aside from the issues 
> would be necessary. I would however like to add that  "implementation" of 
> existing policy may by the way of the interpretation have such a significant 
> impact on stakeholders that community consensus of the form of implementation 
> may become necessary.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
>> Jonathan,
>> 
>> First, this letter makes me more certain we should be emphatic about getting 
>> a GAC observer on the Council.
>> 
>> Second, I have heard Jeff Neuman's comment on clarifying what is policy and 
>> what is implementation and I agree.
>> 
>> Third, until the GNSO structure changes, the GAC advises the Board and if 
>> there are policy questions, the Board engages the Council.  Where is the 
>> Board on this direct advice to the Council?
>> 
>> Four, look forward to the next Council meeting!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Berard
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:59 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" 
>> <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> FYI.  Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my 
>>> time.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38
>>> To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@xxxxxxx; 
>>> Choon Sai LIM (IDA)
>>> Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear Jonathan, 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red 
>>> Crescent protections. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best regards, 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Jeannie Ellers 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Jeannie Ellers
>>> Manager, GAC Coordination
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930
>>> 
>>> Washington, DC 20005
>>> Ph. +1 202 570 7135
>>> M. +1 310 302 7552
>>> 
>>> <GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121128.pdf>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
> 
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
> 
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
> addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
> 
> 
> 
>