<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>All,</div><div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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.</div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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.</div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">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!</div></div><div><br></div><div>Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div>Dear Heather, </div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters. </div>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column"><p>Yours sincerely,</p><div>***</div><div><br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div>Any thoughts or suggestions?</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Thomas</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>