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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The relevant Procedures:

> 16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved 

> GNSO
> Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at
> any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows: 

> 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should
> be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or
> modifications; 

> 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted
> for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days; 

> 3. The GNSO
> Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a
> Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council
> policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been
> implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a
> new PDP on the issue.

I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the
amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG
needs to either accept of reject.  I do not see the procedure as
allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed.

I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept.  I also must
say I do not see any new
evidence or arguments.

In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever
make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the
first place.

Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion?  Majority?  Super
Majority?


Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would
not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to look
at the subject after we have completed the project.

Thanks
avri




On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas
> Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers
> 
> ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen
> Internetwirtschaft e.V.
> 
> Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln
> 
> Fon:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 -
> 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert@xxxxxx <mailto:thomas.rickert@xxxxxx> Web:
> http://www.eco.de
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer:
> Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver
> Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix
> Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins:
> Köln
> 
> 
>