RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
- To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gregory Shatan <gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:06:44 -0400
The correspondence yesterday was the same correspondence we have had for
months. Lets not jump to any conclusions because of the statements of a VERY
small minority of GAC members. Remember, the GAC cannot change course without
a consensus of the GAC. If the Chair, the US, the EU and others object to
changing course within the GAC, then the GAC cannot by its very definition of
consensus change course.
Lets not make more of this issue than it is at this point. Plus, remember, if
the GAC were to change course, we could always say no. And yes, there is a
rationale to treat the IOC and Red Cross differently than the other OECD
organizations (according to the GAC). The GAC letter explained that and it was
reiterated by Greg in his insightful e-mail.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:27 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan;
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can only
comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do appreciate
the argument that the official GAC position has not changed (meaning there is
not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking for a change of course)
the fact that we heard various GAC members expressing reservations and the
potential implications of such protections should certainly be taken on board.
This is significant as it manifests that the GAC might not be speaking as one
voice in this issue; at the very minimum, these are new considerations that the
DT should take on board.
At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that came from
the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that it is
very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, more will
come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of protection. and, one
could easily argue that there is potentially a more valid claim for these orgs
to have their names protected than the IOC or the Red Cross. Are we really
suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for instance, is more important or
valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO?
I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the same way we
have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, which I
believe are significant.
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM
To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc-
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)
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff;
Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
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.
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!