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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree as well !

On 11/15/2012 11:50 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I agree with David and Alan.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>; RICARDO GUILHERME 
> <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>; THOMAS RICKERT <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx 
> <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>; Berry Cobb 
> <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; KEN STUBBS <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG  charter
>
>
> +1
> David W. Maher
> Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
> Public Interest Registry
> 312 375 4849
>
> From: ALAN GREENBERG <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:15:37 -0500
> To: RICARDO GUILHERME <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx<mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>>, THOMAS RICKERT 
> <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: David Maher <dmaher@xxxxxxx<mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx>>, Brian Peck 
> <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>>, Margie Milam 
> <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry Cobb 
> <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, KEN STUBBS <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: 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>>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:49:50 -0500
>
>
>
> To:
> "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>>
>
>
>
> Cc: Margie Milam
> <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
> <
> mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry Cobb
> <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
>
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                  * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>                                                                  * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>                                                                          
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00