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

Thu Apr 26 10:15:01 UTC 2012

Hi Jeff,

I will be happy to join the discussion of DT. 
I can't make it for the call next week because I am travelling that day but will happily join the next sessions.

Best,

Yoav

Yoav Keren 
CEO 
Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. 
81 Sokolov st.	Tel: +972-3-7600500
Ramat Hasharon	Fax: +972-3-7600505
Israel 47238

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:45 AM
To: 'Mason Cole'; 'William Drake'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Cc: 'council at gnso.icann.org'
Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

I was referring to your statement of facts where you say that the Drafting Team work is concluded.  In fact, the drafting team has been meeting and has had a number of truly productive conversations.  Other than the objections of some members of the NCSG, the board refusal to accept the GNSO recommendations at the top level has not affected the work of the Drafting Team at the second level.  They are truly separate discussions relying on separate considerations.  We are scheduled to meet again next Wednesday and it would be great to have you (or other registrars) on the call to get your viewpoint.  Even if the Drafting Team is disbanded by the Council, we assume that the work done by the group to date could be used to inform any future work on these issues.

Thanks.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mason Cole [mailto:mcole at nameking.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Neuman, Jeff; William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc:	council at gnso.icann.org
Subject:	RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

No objection to the discussion at all, Jeff.  I'm aware of the request re second level, though speaking personally the same philosophy holds for me.  Looking forward to the discussion on the DT.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us]
Sent: Wed 4/25/2012 4:36 PM
To: Mason Cole; 'William Drake'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

Mason,

Your statement is true only at the top level and ignores the bulk of the GAC request which relates to the second level.  The GNSO has yet to make any recommendations nor respond to the GAC with regards to second level protections.  This is why I have asked for this item to be a "discussion".  I am not saying that the GNSO should accept of reject the GAC recommendations at the second level, but we need to at least give those recommendations some analysis.  Whether that is through the GNSO directly or through a drafting team is the real item up for discussion.

I strongly suggest we lay the facts on the table at the Council meeting and have a productive conversation on the next call.

Thanks.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Mason Cole [mailto:mcole at nameking.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, April 25, 2012 07:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     William Drake; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc:     council at gnso.icann.org
Subject:        RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

All --

What I read is this:

- The GAC asked for protections for IOC/RC
- The GNSO Council voted to recommend to the board to provide protections in time for first round
- The Board declined
- The IOC/RC DT work is concluded

UNLESS...
- We want to keep the DT in place to a) communicate to the GAC on behalf of the GNSO, and b) pick up work on the now passed IGO motion

OR...
- We disband the IOC/RC DT and form a new DT to address the IGO issue later

In any case, I believe we should communicate to the GAC.  I would like the GNSO's position on record that we supported their request on the basis of their representation that IOC/RC have special protections above the level of those afforded IGOs and others.  I don't know if others are willing to sign on to that position, but I believe it is important to get across.  ICANN is already receiving other requests for all manner of protection, and boundaries should be clear.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of William Drake
Sent: Sat 4/21/2012 1:46 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team

I can't help noticing that this sounds rather similar to a statement that was described in SJ as a slap in the GAC's face, the end of the GNSO Council, and an impediment to life saving work..

Bill

On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

        Councillors,

        The Board rationale for the IOC/RC resolution has now been provided. Please see here: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm

                                Stéphane Van Gelder
        Directeur Général / General manager
        INDOM Group NBT France
        ----------------
        Head of Domain Operations
        Group NBT

        Le 19 avr. 2012 à 04:26, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

                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 <http://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

                Mary W S Wong
                Professor of Law
                Chair, Graduate IP Programs
                Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
                UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
                Two White Street
                Concord, NH 03301
                USA
                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

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************