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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In this respect, I do not think that what the GAC has said or what the DT, 
which some of us disputed the validity of of as a policy recommending body, did 
has any authority or serves to establish precedent over how this PDP WG does 
its work.  

The purpose of this PDP is to understand the conditions under which it is 
should be policy to add names to the reserved named list.  In terms of being 
candidates and petitioners for such treatment, the IOC, the RCRC, other INGOs 
and the IGOs are all in the same basket.  It is only once we understand, and 
decide on, the conditions and the relevant discriminators that we can decide 
who get lumped with whom.

avri

On 14 Nov 2012, at 19:02, Jim Bikoff 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