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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane, two points:

- Where does the 31 December 2013 deadline come from?

- My understanding is that the RC/IOC DT 
recommendation, if adopted by the GNSO Council at 
the meeting which is going on as I write this, or 
at its December or January meetings, will meet that Board requirement.
Alan

At 15/11/2012 05:49 AM, Stephane Hankins wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the components of the International 
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, we wish 
> herewith to concur with the IOC's position expressed in Jim's message.
> In addition to Jim's points, I believe it is 
> valuable to actually quote here the Resolution 
> adopted by the ICANN Board's new gTLD Program 
> Committee on 13 September 2012, which specifically :
>      Requests the GNSO, if it is not possible 
> to conclude the policy work prior to 31 January 
> 2013, to advise the Board by no later than 
> that      date if it is aware of any reason, 
> such as concerns with the global public 
> interest      or the security or stability of 
> the DNS, that the Board      should take into 
> account in making its decision about whether to 
> include second level protections for the IOC 
> and Red Cross/Red            Crescent names 
> listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant 
> Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List 
> applicable in all new            gTLD 
> registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program.
> The request by the Board for a GNSO position 
> regarding any objections to the protections of 
> the RCRC and IOC names at the second level for 
> the initial round of new gLTDs was made very 
> specific and was given a deadline by 31st 
> December 2013. It is necessary that the Working 
> Group examine the questions of the appropriate 
> protections of the RCRC and of IOC names at the 
> second level for the initial round of new gLTDs 
> specifically and on their own terms.
> All best 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
> ----- Forwarded by Stephane 
> Hankins/DC_MOUV/GVA/ICRC on 15.11.2012 10:07 -----
> From:       Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>
> To:      "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:       15.11.2012 01:04
> Subject:       [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed language edit for the WG charter
> Sent by:       owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>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>ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800
> To: Brian Peck <<brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>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
>
> ----------
> The ICRC - working to protect and assist people 
> affected by armed conflict and other situations 
> of violence. Find out more: <http://www.icrc.org>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.
> ----------