RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
- To: "rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
- From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:01:13 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac3/C2jd8vY/D/4cTceQKpj4hLEQlw==
- Thread-topic: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
Thank you for your email.
The IPC was firm in its position on the IOC/RCRC DT that a PDP was not
It is my understanding that the same IPC position was carried forward into the
IGO-INGO PDP, which was both criticized for lumping in the Red Cross with
international governmental and non-governmental organizations but also
generally supported as being one clear method for advancing this important
issue-and likely the only method agreeable to other constituencies in the
Brian J. Winterfeldt
From: Thomas Rickert[SMTP:RICKERT@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01:11 AM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian
Subject: Re: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I have checked the respective minutes of the GNSO Council meetings and
confirmed that both the motions on the resolution on the initiation of the PDP
as well as the adoption of the charter of the WG were carried unanimously.
Am I correct in understanding that the IPC, while it supported both the
initiation of the PDP as well as the scope of the work as laid out in the
charter, now wishes to have its opposition to the PDP reflected in the letter?
Can you please clarify?
Am 30.01.2013 um 02:15 schrieb "Winterfeldt, Brian"
As you may already be aware, I have a different point of view on the Council's
response to the GAC with respect to the ongoing IGO-INGO PDP.
Having informally spoken to GAC representatives about this issue, here are some
personal comments, that are shared by IPC leadership, as well as a proposed
redline that I would like to have on record and I hope the Council will take
o The rather broad scope of the current IGO INGO PDP, which considers
"whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level"
of all gTLDs, has the practical effect of second guessing GAC advice with
respect to international legal norms and public policy. In other words,
whether intentional or unintentional, the impact of the instant PDP is to
challenge, or at least question, not only the GAC's proposed criteria for
protection, but also the GAC's determination to advance protection for the
specific two organizations that meet that criteria.
o Please bear in mind that the GAC was careful to propose protections for
Red Cross designations, Olympic words and a finite list of IGO acronyms for new
gTLDs only. I cannot recall anyone ever recommending or requesting such
protection in all existing gTLDs as well. Thus, the Council's response to the
GAC needs to fully explain any underlying rationale for the unilateral decision
to broaden the scope of the instant PDP well beyond GAC advice to include
o The Council's current draft response to the GAC seems to suggest that the
GNSO's primary remit of policy development relating to the IOC/Red Cross is "to
determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e. for pre-existing, non-commercial,
and/or geographical use) should apply in the domain name context-particularly
at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs." If this is ultimately
our position as a Council, then I believe it is best to gently back away from
the current PDP, at least with respect to the Red Cross designations and
Olympic words, in favor of something much more expeditious and narrow.
o As you may recall, the original IPC position on this issue is that IOC/Red
Cross protection should not be subject to a PDP. That position is not
reflected in the letter, and it should be reflected, even if it is reflected as
a minority view.
o The proposed definition of "policy" in the letter is overbroad, subjective
and particularly inappropriate in light of the recent policy versus
implementation discussion framework published by ICANN policy staff. I believe
it is better to simply admit that there is no bright line test and recognize
that this issue is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community.
o To clarify, I do not believe that the GAC is asking for protection of the
entire .INT list of names. Rather, it is my understanding that the list of
IGOs that qualify under the GAC's criteria (i.e. are treaty-based
organizations) is a discrete list of around only 200 acronyms.
o Finally, the Council should not support anything, regardless of its
substance, that may be interpreted as a legal opinion on intermediary
liability, such as the statement that, "(To our knowledge, however, these laws
would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on
ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party
registrations.)" Conclusions such as these should be fleshed out and
substantiated with objective facts, research or citations.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss any of these comments or
proposed amendments further.
Brian J. Winterfeldt
+1 202 429 6260 direct
+1 202 903 4422 mobile
+1 202 429 3902 fax
Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
+1 212.506.3935 direct
+1 212.506.3950 fax
Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm
Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this
information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:32:24 AM
To: 'Thomas Rickert'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter Auto forwarded by
Many thanks Thomas,
I'll certainly plan to review today.
Jeff (as lead) and others, please note that this is due for completion this
week since I told Heather we'd reply to her in January.
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: 27 January 2013 17:29
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the
draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the
complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a
page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved.
<Draft Council Response re IGO-INGO PDP.doc>