RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather requesting a 
change of direction before we would consider changing course.  We have based 
our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until she as chair 
states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only rely on the 
official request we have.  On a side note, I would be very bothered if the GAC 
changed their request significantly after we had gone to all the effort we have 
to be responsive to their request and would like to think they wouldn't do that.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM
> To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
> 
> 
> I do not think that this is a wise way forward.  We cannot allow what a
> very few members of the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from
> our overall position and recommendations.  I got a full briefing on the
> GAC discussion yesterday and do not believe we need to change course.
> We should only change our course if during today's discussion between
> the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so.  It is really not fair
> for us to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC
> members state.  It would be like another group changing their course on
> what only a few few Councilors state.  GAC members, like Councilors,
> are diverse.  Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one
> way and express their views, that may not impact the view of the
> COuncil as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
> 
> Greogry:
> I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can
> understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and
> reconsider the statements below.  While we should welcome their input,
> a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be
> a dead end.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will
> understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I
> was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC
> members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the
> joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and
> disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission  was
> outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and
> Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the
> UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call
> for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as
> the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and
> combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not
> have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk
> that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique
> position" and gets spec!
>  ial rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that
> there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC.
> And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing
> that they are "unique" and than 50?
> 
> To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board
> letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the
> protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to
> mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms
> for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook
> (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to
> prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a
> cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC
> or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of
> UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with
> the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty
> organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical
> debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first
> phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first
> phase and will come back with a!
>  dditional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms -
> which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And
> BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different
> issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency)
> later.
> 
> To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays
> discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to
> rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US
> and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no
> real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously
> also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument.
> And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the
> 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve,
> why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than
> we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair
> of the board. As an African Union member state  I would raise the issue
> why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN
> rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe
> should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of
> controver!
>  sial discussions.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Wolfgang