Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
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. Cheers Mary -----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? > >Hi, > >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 >opinion. > >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? > >thanks > >avri > >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
|