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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

One other thing, a lot of us have been following this whole saga for quite a 
while, reading the docs and discussing it extensively in the Constituencies and 
Stakeholder groups..  Some of our constituencies and stakeholder groups have 
been shaped by this 'conversation' over the last few years and the members have 
informed positions  We are not uneducated in the arguments being put forward.

I suggest that you ask staff to help you make a wiki page that contains every 
document and every argument you think people should look at.  I expect the 
community will look at it, will discuss it it, and will make up their own minds.

With all due respect, please do not assume our answers will have no 
"substantive value."

avri

On 8 Dec 2012, at 20:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 6:07 PM
> To: 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
>  
>  
>