[Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call

Tue Jan 28 13:00:18 UTC 2014

hi all,

hey, there’s a whole hour yet before our call.  i wouldn’t want to deny anybody the opportunity for even more last-minute last-minute changes.  ;-)

here’s the revised Charter for discussion on the call today.  i’ve folded in all the changes that came in — with a raised eyebrow on Jonathan’s suggested “Ultimately” in front of “More efficient PDPs” as i don’t quite grok what it gains us.  not a strong opinion, just a style thing.

here you go — Draft Charter v.6.  talk to you soon,

mikey

On Jan 27, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:

> Thanks Suzanne,
>  
> That is indeed helpful and seems to me to be a reasonable basis on which to retain the wording of the illustrative example.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov] 
> Sent: 27 January 2014 16:16
> To: Mike O'Connor; Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
>  
> Good morning, everyone.  I thought it might be useful to provide some additional background information with regard to the reference to the Morality and Public Order issue, as per Jonathan’s comment.  The GNSO recommendation on this issue was ultimately determined to be unimplementable, as it was premised on a misinterpretation of the provisions using the same terminology in the Paris Convention.  The GAC provided briefings to the ICANN Board over the course of several meetings explaining that the particular provision in the Paris Convention provided signatory countries with the basis for an exemption to the terms of the Convention; for example, a signatory country could determine not to provide trademark protection if it determined, based on its national laws, that doing so would be inconsistent with public order and morality.  As such, the provisions cannot be transformed into an affirmative basis for any kind of finding with international meaning (which is what the GNSO recommendation entailed).  The Board ultimately accepted the GAC’s argument that there is no agreed international standard of what constitutes morality and public order, and the original recommendation was modified.
>  
> I hope this helps clarify why this particular issue is cited.
>  
> I do have a few minor edits to the opening para for everyone to consider; hope they’re not too late.  Thanks in advance, Suz
>  
>  
> Suzanne Murray Radell
> Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA
> 202-482-3167
>  
>  
>  
> From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:42 AM
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
>  
> hi all,
>  
> let’s try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can.  
>  
> does anybody have any objection to Jonathan’s points?  or anything else in the v.5 draft?  i’ll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call.
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> Thanks Mikey,
>  
> This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly.
>  
> A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for.  That said, I do not anticipate that they are material.
>  
> As follows:
>  
> 1.      The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval.
> Ultimately more efficient PDPs
>  
> Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following?
>  
> We’re now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc.  A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable
>  
> a)      Could we substitute “were inconsistent” “may be inconsistent” .  To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative.
> b)      Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable?  If that’s established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK.  If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example.
>  
> Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this.  These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft.
>  
>  
> Jonathan
> From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18
> To: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
>  
> hi all,
>  
> i’ve attached draft Charter v.5 — which folds in the comments i saw on the list.  
>  
> i’ve chosen to include the email-thread about Mark’s suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference.
>  
> do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark’s suggestion.  partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence.  *I* don’t think i’ve done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree.  :-)
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140128/80bf4c57/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GAC-GNSO -- Draft charter V6.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 52736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140128/80bf4c57/GAC-GNSO--DraftcharterV6-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140128/80bf4c57/attachment-0003.html>