[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Thu Apr 19 03:15:35 UTC 2012

Thanks for adding the clarifications, Jeff - you're right that I'd assumed that some of the options would be obvious. 


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 


"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> 

"'mary.wong at law.unh.edu'" <mary.wong at law.unh.edu>, "'council at gnso.icann.org'" <council at gnso.icann.org> 

4/18/2012 10:29 PM 

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team 

Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed.

I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated.  Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue.  Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011.   Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting.  This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names.

So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:council at gnso.icann.org
Subject:[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

Dear Councilors,

A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC.

In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations.

Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction.

Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both).

Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question?

FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are:

- The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204;

- The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203); and

- The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm.

Thanks and cheers

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120418/3d53546e/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list