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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,
> 
> You suggest we use 'the tool'  Which tool.  The spreadsheet?
> Ok, I suppose that is possible.

Yes, the spreadsheet.
> 
> Will this be available at the time that the C & SGs are doing their initial 
> comments.  

Yes.

> My concern was to make sure that the stakeholders were able to obtain all of 
> the information some members indicated was necessary for them to make 
> educated and informed evaluations.  I want to make sure that the answers we 
> get from the stakeholders are not deprecated because they did not have access 
> to some 'necessary' information.
> 
Agreed. I was informed by staff that a wiki page is currently being worked on 
anyway. 

Thomas

> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:15, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> as you will have seen from the spreadsheet and my covering note the idea is 
>> to have all arguments in one place including links to the relevant documents 
>> to make it easier for all participants to work on this complex issue. 
>> 
>> While I like the idea of a wiki, I suggest we use the tool for the time 
>> being. Let us consider your proposal again prior to opening a public comment 
>> period. 
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> Am 08.12.2012 um 18:16 schrieb 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
>> 
>> Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
>> www.anwaelte.de
>> 
>> Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
>> www.eco.de
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

___________________________________________________________
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