ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
  • From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:22:12 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <53BD6B37.7000906@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <4A187503-A0D7-41FF-A845-FE391360451D@anwaelte.de> <53AC2A30.4040206@acm.org> <53BD6B37.7000906@acm.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac+bkfME7bRYybyXTwyXTTQzu3621g==
  • Thread-topic: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Hi Avri and everyone,

Thanks for following up - staff is preparing a Briefing Note on these
points for the Council which we hope to circulate by today or tomorrow;
FYI we have also consulted with our legal colleagues in the meantime.

We hope the Note will assist the Council with its further deliberations on
the matter.


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 12:17 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?

>As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion.
>As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see
>made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration.  I know that some
>have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them
>on, but that is not the way I read the rules.  Perhaps we need a legal
>I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and
>reconsideration.  My problem is sending them on with prior council
>approval and I think that is what the current rules demand.
>Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion.  Is it a majority
>issue since it is not otherwise defined?
>On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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 GNSO¹s 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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