RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jeff and thanks, J. Scott. I was attempting to kick start
today's conversation and appreciate your comments. 

On the stalling tactic question and perceptions of the NCUC, I will
just say that I've not checked to see which of the members that
commented were NCSG members who are not members of NCUC, but there is at
least one comment by an NPOC/NCSG member. As for stalling, I will also
say that if that were the case - and as all the email traffic on the
NCSG listserv and the comments made by the various NCSG Councilors at
last week's Council meeting will show - we would not have agreed that
(1) sufficient time will have elapsed for public comment by 23 March (as
opposed to 14 April); and (2) it will be fair to hold a Council meeting
on 26 March if we were indeed attempting to stall and defeat the motion
by passage of time so as to render the work of the DT moot. 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu 


>>> 


From:  
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>,
"wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
3/21/2012 12:27 PM 

Subject:  
RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call 

Thanks Mary. I am responding in my personal capacity and not as chair.

I think there are a number of assumptions in the arguments raised by
NCSG members which you would have to accept as true in order to accept
the conclusions.  I am not sure we can definitively state they are true.

First, you would have to assume that the IOC and RCRC believe that they
are “fully protected” in this round.  In light of the GAC Communiqué and
the statements by the IOC/RCRC in this group, can we state that that is
in fact true?  Also, without the String Similarity Review, are they in
fact fully protected.  In the DT team to date, we based our
recommendations on the assumption that they were not fully protected
with any strings other than exact matches of their house marks (and a
few other languages). 
Second, there is a notion of “charging” for a letter of non-objection
or licensing.  I believe the IOC and RCRC on this list stated that that
would not be the case.
Finally, we have operated from Day 1 without any assumptions as to
whether the IOC or RCRC would apply during this round or not. The GAC
gave its advice without such considerations and I believe we should be
operating under that same premise. I personally do not know if they want
to apply or not, but I do not believe that should play into the
discussions.   
   
Just some initial thoughts in my personal capacity and not as a chair
or a RySG rep. 
   

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

 

   

From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:14 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff; Chuck
Gomes
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call 

  
I am sorry I won't be able to get on today's call, but FWIW I thought
it might be useful to place some thoughts in circulation on this list
since I won't be able to voice them during the call.  
   
In ongoing comments and meetings since the DT recommendations were sent
to the Council, several NCSG members (including a number who do not
regularly attend ICANN F2F meetings) have noted that the IOC/RC are
already *fully protected* in this first round, ie. no one can have them.
As such, and given that only slightly over a week remains to get into
TAS, and that applications then close less than a month from now,
opening up applications to the organizations and other third parties now
and including string similarity review would mean practically that only
these two organizations (assuming they are preparing for this
eventuality) can and will apply, and/or that they will now have have an
opportunity for financial gain (e.g. through charging for a letter of
non-objection or licensing under the new gTLD, if approved). While it's
not the GNSO's place necessarily to question how these organizations
conduct their financial operations, NCSG members would hope at least
that the GNSO considers whether this practical effect justifies
modifying the current protections already afforded to these two
organizations by the AGB AT THIS TIME, versus for future rounds.  
   
For DT purposes, I would hope that we consider whether the current
motion can be amended to reflect that (1) the two organizations are
already fully protected by mandate of the Board following GAC advice
prior to the program launch; (2) while the DT's recommendations (in
particular, Recommendation 1 as it stands) are more fully representative
of GNSO debate and rough consensus, practical considerations dictate
that they ought, if at all, to apply to the second and/or future rounds;
and (3) should the IOC and/or RC wish to apply for their own gTLDs in
this round, they be considered exceptional one-off first-round
implementation cases for which special provisions could be made during
the evaluation process to accommodate fairness concerns (e.g. waiver of
the objection fee should one be filed).  
   
BTW I should say that these are my own reactions in thinking through
the matter post-Costa Rica, and not a suggestion discussed or at this
point supported by the NCSG.  
   
Okay, I'm going to put on my flak jacket now :(  
   
Cheers  
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu


>>>  


From:  
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  

To: 
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>  

Date:  
3/21/2012 11:42 AM  

Subject:  
RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call  


Jeff,

My suggestion was in response to the comments received and it would not
change the first round.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:32 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
>
> I do not recommend taking this approach with respect to the
top-level
> during this round.  The motion that is already before the motion is
> what it is. It can be voted up or down in its current form based on
> what it currently states.
>
> To open up the recommendations now for the top-level in this round,
> given the GNSO Council comments we received would only raise issues
of
> the need for additional public comment (rightfully so) and
criticisms
> that there was not enough time for the constituencies to consider
the
> new wording of the motion.  One of the common themes expressed
during
> the meeting was that "how can we vote on a motion that is
continuously
> changing."
>
> For the call today, lets discuss the comments received and how to
> address/respond to them.  We should also discuss whether the
comments
> changes any of the opinions of the DT members (i.e., changes support
to
> non-support or vice versa). Then we can focus on the work plan to
> address the second level.
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:20 AM
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
>
> I already saw your Circle ID article Wolfgang.  I support this
approach
> as I have said before, but I still don't think there is enough time
to
> develop the language.  I wonder if the IOC and RCRC reps could
propose
> some generic language in the next few days?  If they could, maybe we
> could do this now, but I still suspect that it would be difficult
for
> us to do it in such a short timeframe.
>
> Would this be a reasonable approach for the DT to take: Recommend
that
> any ongoing continuation of these protections beyond the first round
be
> done using generic requirements without identification of the
eligible
> organizations?
>
> Note that I am speaking on my own personal behalf.  I have not
> discussed the above with anyone else in the RySG.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:37 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> >
> > Chuck, such a request to the GAC would be helpful. See also my
rticle
> > in Circle ID.
> >
> >
>
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120320_slippery_territory_ioc_and_red_
> > c
> > ross_in_the_new_gtld_program/
> >
> >
> > w
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> > Gesendet: Mi 21.03.2012 12:48
> > An: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Betreff: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> >
> >
> >
> > Will do Jeff.  Did the Council send a request to the GAC for
general
> > language that wouldn't require naming of the IOC and RCRC?
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> > dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:10 PM
> > To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please make sure you review the comments already filed at
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-proposal/ so we are prepared
to
> > have a discussion on thee tomorrow.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> > 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> > Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax:
> +1.703.738.7965
> > / jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   /
> > www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> >
> >