Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: IOC Objections to SG input form

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

+1
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849

From: CHUCK GOMES <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:41:05 -0500
To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>, Kiran 
Malancharuvil <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: IOC Objections to SG input form

Jim,

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of your points one way or another, 
I am concerned about delaying the request for input from SOs/ACs/SGs & 
constituencies.  We know that it will take the respective groups several weeks 
to respond to the request so the responses will likely not be received until 
January.  We also know that we need to respond to the Board by the end of 
January so we already have a serious time problem.  Moreover, we do not know 
when the GC Office will respond to request regarding the applicability of 
treaties and national laws; the GC Office clearly did not respond this past 
week as expected and as far as we know it might take several weeks more.  Even 
one week delay will have undesirable consequences.

It is my personal recommendation that proceed promptly to send out the request 
for input unless we can be assured that the GC response to our questions is 
forthcoming in the next few days.  The SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs are free to communicate 
the same concerns that you express in their input and we can provide them 
additional information later if we receive it from the GC Office or elsewhere.

Chuck



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 6:07 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IOC Objections to SG input form
Importance: High

Dear All:

On behalf of the IOC, we would like to provide some commentary on the following 
Questions Presented to SO’s/AC’s/Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies.

4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and 
other IGOs and INGOs?

This question should not be asked until the group defines the objective 
criteria by which these organizations will be considered for protection.  We 
believe that the substantive difference between the RCRC/IOC and IGO/INGOs is 
legal, and requires somewhat complex legal analysis.  Because of that, it would 
be more appropriate to ask this question of the community once we, and they 
have the benefit of ICANN General Counsel’s answers to the Working Group’s 
legal inquiry, or, at the very least, more information than what is given to 
them here.

In addition, this question has been answered by the GAC and by ICANN inside and 
outside counsel, and the conclusions and analysis have been presented to the 
community.  Again, at the very least, the group should present the material 
which contains the analysis behind the GAC and Board decisions to provide 
context for this question.

7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and the IOC 
names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made 
permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for 
appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have?

Again, this question is both premature and inadequately presented.  The Working 
Group should wait until the ICANN General Counsel responds to its legal 
inquiry, and should provide the answer to that question to the groups receiving 
this questionnaire before seeking input. Without providing necessary context, 
the answers to the questions run the risk of being without weight or 
substantive value.

8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are 
adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and 
TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)?

The IOC has spent over a year answering this question.  We would respectfully 
ask that this question be presented along with the materials that we submitted 
to the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, in order to provide context to the individuals 
and groups that are answering this questionnaire. Without this information, the 
question presented is unfairly skewed.

Best regards,

Jim