[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Wed Feb 29 21:58:16 UTC 2012

Stephane is correct that the status document is not one that needs to be put out for public comment as it is an informal document.

That said, the recommendations 1-3 in the report are recommendations from the Drafting Team that we do want feedback on for the Costa Rica meeting and it is those recommendations that in theory would be put before the Council at that time (not the report).

I would strongly encourage everyone to get feedback on those recommendations ASAP from your constituencies, stakeholder groups, ACs, etc.  This is not a new request as Drafting Team members have been doing this all along.  Circumstances here are not perfect.  No one is going to argue with that.  We all wish we have more time, but we do not.  The GAC has asked us to comment on their proposal to us in September with the intention of it being implemented at the top-level in this round and we should all strive to do that.

It would be disappointing to the Drafting Team if we could not get past the procedural issues at the council level when the Drafting Team has worked so hard to come with a solution that actually works for the parties involved.  So we all know what the procedural issues are.  The Drafting Team would really appreciate any comments on the substance.

I want to personally thank the Drafting Team for their work so far and we will continue to work through this issues irrespective of what happens at the Council level.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:42 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; council at gnso.icann.org GNSO; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Agree on both counts Chuck. My point here is that this is not something that has come out of the DT. This is a document that Jeff drafted in his own time, following a request from the GAC to have some supporting documentation.

To me, putting such a document out for public comment would be a step too far from standard procedure.

Stéphane

Le 29 févr. 2012 à 22:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Moreover, it is not without precedent for WG's to request comments on their work before they are finished.
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:29 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Thanks for the clarification, Stephane - I'd asked precisely because it occurred to me that having a formal public comment period for this report would not be possible for a number of reasons. That said, and assuming the Council will be asked to vote on one/some/all recommendation(s) in Costa Rica, I can foresee problems ahead if, for instance, the Council votes then to approve certain permanent protections for this and future gTLD rounds based on recommendations made by other than a formal GNSO Working Group.

I would think that a few of my Council colleagues would either share my concerns or have some of their own. If so, and assuming we agree that should this topic come up for a vote in Costa Rica our normal deferral process would be the worst thing we could do in terms of responsiveness to the GAC, then we need to find ways to get feedback on the actual recommendation(s) from all the community, in addition to input on the various options/issues they may have already given to the DT during the discussion process.

Cheers
Mary

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<mailto: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<mailto:firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu>. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>

>>>
From:

Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>

To:

"council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>

CC:

<gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>

Date:

2/29/2012 4:18 PM

Subject:

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

There is no official comment period planned for this. This is an unofficial report drafted by Jeff to help with an upcoming call, and not a document of the DT.

It should therefore not be put out for public comment.

Stéphane

Le 29 févr. 2012 à 21:34, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

Thanks Mary.  The document is "out for public comment" now.  I would love for it to be formally out, but some may argue that takes an act of Council.  We have a very limited time frame here and have had valuable input from each constituency and stakeholder group already and continue to get more.

Can ICANN staff put this on their page?  Any help would be appreciated.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:25 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Thanks, Jeff and everyone on the DT, for some marvelously quick and detailed work, and for a very clear and concise report.

Question - will this be put out for "official" public comment? I ask partly because of the possibility that the Council will be asked to vote on at least some part of the report in Costa Rica, and also because the recommendations pertain to protections that will also apply to future new gTLD rounds.

As many of you know, I definitely support a closer, better and more responsive working relationship with the GAC; however, even leaving aside issues with the process by which this particular issue came to the table and has now to be resolved, I remain concerned about ad-hoc work under the heading of "implementation" that isn't so much a natural follow-up to the GNSO's own policy recommendations (i.e. in this case the 2007 report on new gTLDs) but which could change or conflict with them. I know this issue was raised during this particular DT's discussions, as was the issue of precedent-setting, so I'm glad we're watchful for these risks. This might, however, buttress the argument that at the very least, a public comment be instituted prior to any vote/action.

Cheers
Mary

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<mailto: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<mailto:firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu>. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>

>>>
From:

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

To:

"council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%20> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%20> " <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>

CC:

"gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>>

Date:

2/28/2012 11:43 PM

Subject:

[council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

FYI.   Please circulate amongst your constituencies, stakeholder groups and Advisory Committees.

From: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:38 PM
To: Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca<mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>; mark.carvell at culture.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gsi.gov.uk>; SRadell at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>;stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Cc: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>; Neuman, Jeff
Subject: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Heather, Mark and Suzanne,

As promised, please find enclosed a status report from the Chair of the IOC/RC Drafting Team of the GNSO Council that has been tasked with advising the GNSO Council with respect to the September 2011 GAC proposal on permanently protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second levels for new gTLDs.  Although this report was shared with the members of the Drafting Team, it was drafted by me as the Chair, and as such is not an official report from the Drafting Team.  It represents the Chair's current understanding of the discussions of the Drafting Team.  Each of the recommendations addressed in this report are still under review by the GNSO Community.  We are providing this report to assist in the discussions between the Drafting Team, interested GNSO Councilors and GAC members on March 2, 2012.

Please feel free to forward this report to the other members of the GAC as I will be sending this to the GNSO Council as well.  We look forward to a productive call this Friday as well as in Costa Rica at the ICANN meeting.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>  / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120229/96e2ae7a/attachment.html>