ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council

  • To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
  • From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:32:30 +0200
  • Cc: "Brian J. Winterfeldt" <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <003e01cf80d2$e6c0db80$b4429280$@afilias.info>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <670C6FC1C06021418D398DFA9BA0FE5901ABF078@WAS-US-MAIL-1B.us.kmz.com> <003e01cf80d2$e6c0db80$b4429280$@afilias.info>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jonathan,
I am ok with these changes as well.

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 05.06.2014 um 17:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Thank-you Brian,
>  
> These seem reasonable to me.
>  
> Hopefully to Thomas as well.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 05 June 2014 13:38
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
>  
> Dear Jonathan:
>  
> I wish to offer the following amendment, on behalf of the IPC, to the first 
> motion on our agenda—namely the motion to initiate a PDP on access to 
> curative rights protection mechanisms. 
>  
> The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP 
> and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and 
> INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO 
> PDP WG); and (ii) if so, in what way;, or (ii) whether a separate 
> narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection 
> measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be 
> developed.
>  
> I would ask that the Council also consider implementing a similar amendment 
> within the PDP WG Charter itself.  I do hope that these minor changes will be 
> accepted as friendly, as their primary goal is to align the language more 
> closely with the recommendation in the final issues report (which follows) 
> and delineate two clear options. 
>  
> Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council commence a PDP on the 
> specific issue described in this Issue Report, i.e. exploring whether the 
> UDRP and URS should be amended, and if so in what way; or whether a separate 
> narrowly tailored procedure designed, to enable curative protection for IGOs 
> and INGOs should be developed.
>  
> In short, as it stands, I think the semicolon and numeral (ii) are slightly 
> out of place, and might confuse two otherwise very clear options for the WG 
> to consider.
>  
> I look forward to discussing this suggested amendment with everyone on our 
> call.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Brian
>  
> Brian J. Winterfeldt 
> Head of Internet Practice
> Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
> 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
> p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244
> brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / www.kattenlaw.com
>  
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn Behalf OfGlen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:11:48 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
> 
> The motions have been posted on page :
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014
>  
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: mardi 27 mai 2014 00:55
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
> Importance: High
>  
> All,
>  
> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
>  
> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as 
> chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
>  
> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the 
> motions.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jonathan
> ===========================================================
> CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before 
> the Internal Revenue
> Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be 
> used and cannot be used
> by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed 
> on the taxpayer.
> ===========================================================
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
> intended for the exclusive
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
> information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under 
> applicable law.  If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, 
> copying, disclosure or 
> distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or 
> sanction.  Please notify
> the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and 
> delete the original 
> message without making any copies.
> ===========================================================
> NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability 
> partnership that has
> elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
> ===========================================================
>  

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



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