[council] Draft GNSO Council Resolution

Tue Apr 18 23:06:02 UTC 2017

James,

Does this motion has a second ? 

On limited x finite, from a mathematical standpoint, the whole DNS namespace is finite, so a finite list could encompass all possible labels. As you pointed out, this would greatly expand the scope. 

Rubens

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:55 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> Councilors –
>  
> Please see below and attached for a message from Stephane Hankins of the ICRC, in which he provides some comments/feedback on our motion on amending the PDP regarding RC names. 
>  
> A few notes:
>  
> ·         There is no mechanism for a non-Councilor to propose edits to a pending motion that is under consideration by the Council.  Therefore, Mr. Hankins’ proposed changes would need to be raised via a Councilor, if we are to consider them at all.
>  
> ·         I have reviewed Mr. Hankins’ comments on the language of the motion , and most appear to be cosmetic in nature, with the exception of his edits to Resolved 1(a). Because I believe this change could be read as expanding the scope of protected strings, and as the maker of the motion, I would not accept this change as “friendly”, should it be tabled by a Councilor.
>  
>  
> ·         Finally, please note Mr. Hankins’ additional request regarding protections for Red Cross acronyms.  Because this topic was not included in our discussions at Copenhagen, I do not recommend we try to address it as a component of this motion.  Rather, I would like to raise it as a point of discussion during our meeting, including possible next steps (e.g., referral to the active PDP).
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> J.
> ------------------
> James Bladel
> GNSO Chair
>  
>  
> From: Stephane Hankins <shankins at icrc.org <mailto:shankins at icrc.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:27 
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>, "mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>" <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>>, "Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey at icrc.org <mailto:clindsey at icrc.org>>
> Subject: Draft GNSO Council Resolution 
>  
> Dear James and GNSO Council members,
> 
> We have been copied on the draft GNSO Council Resolution on the initiation of a policy amendment process on specific Red Cross names, to be considered by the GNSO Council on 20 April.
> 
> We would like to propose that several minor revisions be brought to the draft Resolution, and in particular that the title of the Resolution refer to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers. Other minor suggestions are included in the attachment to this message.
> 
> We also had a question to you whether the resumed PDP should not be proposed to address the question of the ICRC and Federation acronyms/initials. While this was not discussed during the Working Group discussion in Copenhagen, the 2013 PDP and the subsequent GNSO Recommendations to the Board included a recommendation that the ICRC and IFRC acronyms be placed under the 90-days Trademark Clearinghouse Claims Notice protection. The GAC's Durban Communiqué of July 2013 recommended on its part that the acronyms be accorded  [t]he same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out for the protection of acronyms of IGOs. This is hence another area where the GNSO’s 2013 consensus recommendations are not consistent with GAC advice. Is the assumption that this issue will be referred to the ongoing PDP on curative protections for IGO's? If not, should this question not be referenced in the operative paragraphs of the draft GNSO Council Resolution as an additional issue for review by the resumed PDP. We would appreciate your thoughts on this. 
> 
> We remain available to take part and to support the resumed PDP process to be decided. 
> 
> With thanks and kind regards,
> 
> Stéphane 
>   
>   
> Stéphane J. Hankins
> Legal adviser
> Cooperation and coordination within the Movement
> International Committee of the Red Cross
> Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 
>   =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org <http://www.icrc.org/> This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================
> <Draft Section 16 Resolution for RC names - updated 10 APR 2017.icrc slight revisions (1).docx>_______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170418/9d067697/attachment.html>