RE: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?

[Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas,

This seems like a good idea to me and perhaps sooner rather than later i.e.
today.

Jonathan
On 23 Jun 2014 17:41, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Thomas.
>
>
>
> This could be a subject for informal discussion tomorrow @ 18h00 if
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 23 June 2014 16:58
> *To:* GNSO Council List
> *Subject:* [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
>
>
>
> All,
>
> 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please find
> attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the Whereas
> clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation to possibly
> modifying the GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO acronym
> identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a
> document containing the actual proposed modification for the Council to
> discuss forwarding on to the reconvened WG and including some background
> information such as the actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice;
> and (3) a comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the
> proposed modifications side by side.
>
>
>
> This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in
> preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will
> not be voted on till the first meeting following this London gathering, but
> we thought it might be useful for the Council to have all the necessary
> documentation at the first possible opportunity.
>
>
>
> Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the
> recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of time we
> thought it important for you to be able to review these early!
>
>
>
> Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at such
> short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
>
>
>
> 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent meeting),
> there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a few
> people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was wondering whether the
> current status and the suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In
> particular, I am afraid that there is the misconception that a full PDP
> might be required for changes to the recommendations. I would therefore
> suggest we send a small briefing note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-).
> Chances would be that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué.
>
>
>
> ***
>
> Dear Heather,
>
> following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we would like to briefly
> outline both the current status as well as the next steps with respect to
> the IGO/RCRC question.
>
>
>
> 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of June
> 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide notice to
> the organization in question is offered for the designations in question
> whenever such designation has been registered. Currently, the GNSO policy
> recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service.
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during the
> public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, the course
> of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider this very question
> and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to stress that this
> consultation process would presumably take a short period of time. The
> GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP.
>
>
>
> 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to enable
> its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures for an
> arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names and acronyms.
> We note that this work is already under way with the PDP that has been
> initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus,
> no action is required with respect to potential modifications of GNSO
> Council policy recommendations as the aspect of working on potential
> modifications of curative rights protection mechanisms was already included
> in the set of recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last
> year. While the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections
> remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed.
>
>
>
> We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> ***
>
>
>
> Any thoughts or suggestions?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>