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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ricardo.  We are only beginning the work to determine which - if 
any - groups need extra protection.  We cannot put the cart before the horse 
and presume the answer.  We are NOT a rubber stamp process.

Thank you,
Robin Gross

On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> On behalf of the International Olympic Committee, we object to Mr. 
> Guilherme's proposal on the following grounds:
> 
>  
> 
> First, for over a year, the IOC and Red Cross organizations' names have been 
> expressly addressed by the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ICANN Board, 
> ICANN's inside and outside counsel, the Applicant Guidebook, and the IOC/RCRC 
> Drafting Team. It would make no sense to suddenly abandon this express 
> consideration, and to lump them in with entities that have not been so 
> thoroughly considered.
> 
>  
> 
> Second, consideration of the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names is supposed 
> to be expedited.  Mr. Guilherme's proposal, lumping them in with other 
> entities, would prolong the process. 
> 
> 
> Third, the Charter language was carefully crafted and approved by the 
> IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. Many of the members of that team, who are also 
> members of the new PDP Group, were not on the call today, and it would be 
> unfair to recommend changes on behalf of the Group in their absence and 
> without their knowledge.
> 
>  
> 
> In sum, we believe that Mr. Guilherme's proposal does not reflect a 
> considered consensus. It would disregard the careful consideration already 
> given to IOC/RCRC protection, delay the process, and contravene the mission 
> of the Working Group.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Jim
> 
>  
> 
> James L. Bikoff
> 
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
> 
> 1101 30th Street, NW
> 
> Suite 120
> 
> Washington, DC 20007
> 
> Tel: 202-944-3303
> 
> Fax: 202-944-3306
> 
> jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Peck
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:50 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail
> 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