RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
I am not responding in particular to Jeff's message but just adding my comments to the oversell theme. These are my one comments and not those of the ALAC. At this point, I really don't care which way this motion goes, but we need to have closure. Regardless of the words regarding future rounds, it is now clear that there WILL be a full review looking at a wider group than just the IOC and RC. I support the motion in that I think the end-result is more consistent with the rest of the AG, but also accept that although not "fully" protected due to the lack of string similarity, I think that the difference is one of philosophy and will not likely have any measurable impact on this round. (It either org had planned to apply for their own names, I believe we would have heard that said by now - the is NO reason that they would need to keep quiet and good reason for them to have spoken up. Alan At 21/03/2012 12:26 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: 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 âfully protectedâ 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 âchargingâ 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 PMTo: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff; Chuck GomesSubject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's CallI 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 ProgramsUNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone>mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: <http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected>http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <http://ssrn.com/author=437584>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: <mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx>firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To:"Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <<mailto: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>mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:32 AM> To: Gomes, Chuck; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:20 AM> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Neuman, Jeff; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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>mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:37 AM> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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_>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120320_slippery_territory_ioc_and_red_> > c > > ross_in_the_new_gtld_program/ > > > > > > w > > ________________________________ > >> > Von: <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck> > Gesendet: Mi 21.03.2012 12:48 > > An: Neuman, Jeff; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-> > <mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:10 PM > > To: <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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/>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> > / <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> /> > <http://www.neustar.biz>www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> > > > >
|