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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,
this is to let you know that the GNSO Council has approved the proposed charter 
as presented to the Council. 

As can be seen from the correspondence on the list earlier today, there was no 
unanimity regarding Ricardo's proposal. Nonetheless, I have informed the 
Council that there was debate surrounding the language. This was not picked up 
to make any changes to the wording. 

Let me say that I am impressed with the fact that both Ricardo's proposal as 
well as the responses thereto were made so swiftly despite time zone 
differences. 

Let's keep this momentum and thank you all for your contributions.

Thomas


Am 15.11.2012 um 15:18 schrieb Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> I support David's recommended edits
> 
> Ken Stubbs
> 
> On 11/14/2012 6:10 PM, David W. Maher wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>