Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

Brian:
I believe this goes beyond what was agreed at our meeting today.
I do not regard the first indent as redundant or duplicative. I would approve 
removal of the phrase beginning " develop specific …" from the second indent.
David
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849

From: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:49:50 -0500
To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry 
Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

To Members of the IGO-INGO Working Group:

During the call today a proposal was submitted to the WG by Ricardo Guilherme 
for the WG to request the GNSO Council to consider revising the draft WG 
Charter which will be voted on during the Council meeting on 15 November.  The 
suggested revision is delineated below.

Members are asked to state whether they would approve or object to this 
proposal being submitted to the Council on behalf of this PDP WG.

The Council meets at 11:00 UTC on the 15 Nov. and so, WG members are requested 
to submit their approval/objection no later than 8:00 UTC on 15 Nov.

If approved to be submitted on behalf of the WG, then the Chair could 
submit/present to the Council for its consideration in voting on adopting the 
draft WG Charter.

Thank you.

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN




------ Forwarded Message
From: GUILHERME ricardo <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800
To: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

Dear Brian,

As discussed during the call, please find below the proposed remarks and edits 
to the WG Charter (Section "Mission and scope", third paragraph, first and 
second indents), to be shared with and potentially submitted by the WG before 
the GNSO Council call takes place tomorrow.

An inconsistency exists between the language used in the first indent and the 
one contained in the second indent, in the sense that there is already an 
assumption that protection shall be afforded to the two movements/organizations 
named therein. Moreover, a reference to the initial round of new gTLDs is 
already provided in the second indent.

THE CURRENT DRAFT WG CHARTER READS:

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for 
special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs 
for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is 
expected to:

-      Determine the appropriate protection for RCRC and IOC names at the 
second level for the initial round of new gLTDs.

-      Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC 
and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs 
should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, 
develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these 
names.

In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that the WG is supposed to provide, on 
a comprehensive and objective basis, recommendations concerning the protection 
of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (including as the case may be the 
IOC and the RC for the latter category).

Consequently, in case the final recommendation is to refuse permanent 
protection to one entity or another, there is no legal or logical reason to 
further "develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections 
for these names". I may also add that both the IOC and the RC fall within the 
scope of INGOs.

In the light of the above, the first indent should be deleted (as it is 
redundant/duplicating language already present in the second indent) and the 
second indent read as follows instead:

"Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and 
IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of the new gTLDs are 
appropriate and should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs."

With kind regards,

Ricardo Guilherme


------ End of Forwarded Message