RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to our WG and our subject matter

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I too have not read the Communique carefully, but there is to be a 
large section for IGOs that SEEMS to be asking only for notification 
if someone attempts to use one of the "protected" names implying a 
waiting period while the IGO has an opportunity to object. So the 
time seems to be uncertain, but it is clearly specified as "cost 
neutral" whatever that means.
They use very differnet words for RCRC/Olympics that seems to prevent 
registration.
So perhaps for IGO names and acronyms they have redefined the 
protection they are asking for.
Alan




At 21/07/2013 11:35 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> Avri,
>
> You didn't see it because it's not there (apologies for the slightly 
> tongue-in-cheek heading).  Our WG did come up in the GAC/GNSO 
> Session on Sunday.  There's no transcript of that meeting (at least 
> not yet).  My basic recollection of that meeting was that the GAC 
> acknowledged that we and the GAC are on "parallel tracks" and that 
> the GAC would be concerned if the GNSO's recommendations differed 
> from the GAC Advice.  Brian Peck (presenting) was rather in the hot 
> seat.  It would be great if others who were present could amplify or 
> correct my recollections of that meeting.
> If anything, the Durban Communique attempts to paint the Board into 
> a corner by stating that "the ICANN Board, further to its previous 
> assurances, is prepared to fully implement GAC Advice" (on the IGO 
> point at least).
> There is potential for a complex and difficult situation and, in the 
> crush of events in Durban, it did not get much attention.  Should 
> this WG and/or the GNSO be involved in the GAC/NGPC discussions on 
> this matter even if there is no formal track for such 
> interaction?  What if we show up after the Board implements the GAC 
> Advice and the GNSO then issues conflicting Policy Recommendations? 
> What if the Board votes it down?  What if we are not finished by the 
> time the first roll-outs are scheduled to occur?
> We should consider these, before there is a "policy clash"....
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:04 AM
> To: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note 
> references to our WG and our subject matter
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess I need to reread it, while I recall them discussing the 
> subject, I do not remember the GAC acknowledging the existence of the WG.
> But I read it quickly, so perhaps I missed that part where they ack 
> our group's work, indicate a willingness to work with us and give at 
> least some small indication of respecting the fact that we working 
> hard (some of you harder than the rest of us) on the problem, trying 
> to find a solution that is consistent with international law, 
> Internet openness and the ICANN bottom-up decision processes.
> Apologies for missing the WG meeting in Durban, ATRT2 filled my dance card.
>
> avri
>
> On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:51, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18jul13-en.htm
> >
> > Gregory S. Shatan
> > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media
> > ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships
> > 599 Lexington Avenue
> > New York, NY 10022
> > 212.549.0275 | Phone
> > 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> > 212.521.5450 | Fax
> > gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > www.reedsmith.com
> >
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >