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

["Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I support Jeff as well.  I think the path forward should not change unless 
there is a different directive given by the GAC.

Best regards,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:34 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC


Dear All,

I completely agree with Jeff.   Our job at this point is to stat the course.  
The issues raised by OECD are for the GAC to debate and come to consensus and, 
even then, we could conclude that NGO protection is unwarranted.

J. Scott

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Konstantinos,
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> -----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; 
> gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>
> Dear all,
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks
>
> Konstantinos
>
> 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>>, 
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>  Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 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.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
> 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'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<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>;
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 sp!
 ec!
>  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
>
>
>
>