<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
- To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Chuck Gomes'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
- From: "Joy Liddicoat" <joy@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:08:25 +1300
Thanks Jeff – especially for the humour. I am currently trying to dial in to
the meeting and to connect via Adobe but I am on hold for both for some reason.
I will keep trying.
Joy
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 6:42 a.m.
To: Alan Greenberg; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chuck Gomes
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
I agree with Alan that whatever happens, we need closure so we can tackle the
larger issue of the second level protections. I also agree that perceptions
are just as important (if not more so important) than practicalities or what
will actually happen.
Just as Mary may be absolutely correct that it is unlikely for an entity that
was not going to apply to all of a sudden decide to apply now that this has
been decided. Just the same, it is probably also just as rare that an entity
in the Olympia region of Greece was thinking of applying for a TLD at $185,000
and now cannot because they will be adversely affected by this decision. But,
no matter how rare and unlikely the circumstances are, that does not mean we do
not have to address them because both of those situations are important to
different segments of the global Internet community.
We are an ICANN GNSO Working Group! We specialize in addressing the fringe
cases J Just a little humor before the call.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:12 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chuck Gomes
Subject: 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
“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
<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
<mailto: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
> > <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
> > <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> > /
> > www.neustar.biz < http://www.neustar.biz/ <http://www.neustar.biz/> >
> >
> >
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|