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

[GUILHERME ricardo <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

I take your point but respectfully disagree (if I understood you correctly, of 
course); there is still a clear contradiction in the language below, as 
acknowledged by the group yesterday (emphasis is mine):

"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 other words, the Charter is already determining that, EVEN if the PDP 
concludes AGAINST permanent protection, it would still have to develop 
"specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these names." 
I fail to see how this can be consistent with a de novo conclusion that could 
potentially go against granting such specific protections in the first place (I 
also note that the Caput of that article refers to a "general" conclusion 
towards protection of names of certain organizations, so it doesn't really 
conflict with the paragraph above).

With kind regards,

Ricardo

De : Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 15:16
À : GUILHERME ricardo; 'Thomas Rickert'; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc : David W. Maher; Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Berry Cobb; Ken Stubbs
Objet : RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

Regarding "...and if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate 
special protections for these names.", I stated that my interpretation of this 
language included the possibility that as a result of the WG de novo 
deliberations, such recommendations could be to provide no special protections, 
and the Council Chair agreed that it was his reading as well.

Alan

At 15/11/2012 09:04 AM, GUILHERME ricardo wrote:

Dear Thomas,

Unfortunately it seems like the timing was tight even for removal of the last 
part of the second indent (which as far as I understand had been agreed by the 
group without opposition) - nevertheless, we look forward to actively following 
on and participating in the activities of the WG and associated discussions, so 
that it can reach its conclusions on the basis of sound, objective and 
non-discriminatory criteria, and in conformity with the relevant international 
and domestic legal principles applicable to intergovernmental organizations or, 
as the case may be, other international non-governmental organizations.

With kind regards,

Ricardo Guilherme

De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> [ 
mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Thomas Rickert
Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 14:36
À : gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc : David W. Maher; Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Berry Cobb; Ken Stubbs
Objet : Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

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<mailto: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>

<<mailto: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>

<<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>

mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"

<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>

<<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>

mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>


Cc: Margie Milam

<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>

<<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>

mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry Cobb

<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<<mailto: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

<mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>

<ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx><mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>


Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800


To: Brian Peck

<brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx><mailto: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