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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim, all,
please note that Berry Cobb sent out the draft document, which we discussed 
extensively during the last call, and requested input by yesterday, 20.00 UTC. 
When your message came in shortly after 23.00 UTC, the request for input was 
already sent out by staff.

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 08.12.2012 um 00:06 schrieb Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>:

> 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
>  
>  
>  

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de