[gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
The attached suggested amendments to the wording of the call for consensus statement was suggested by one RySG member about 30 minutes ago so there was not time to get responses from other RySG members. I am forwarding it to our discussion group list so that it will be easier for everyone on the list to follow along when I talk about it. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of GUILHERME ricardo Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:27 PM To: Regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [REGYCON] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th Importance: High Dear Chuck and All, Thanks again for the opportunity to provide our comments; as said on previous occasions, we must emphasize our support for the establishment of a comprehensive PDP on the protection of the names and acronyms of international organizations (including as necessary the IOC/RC cases) that reaches its conclusions on a legally-sound basis and in line with binding international treaty provisions applicable, at least in the case of the UPU, to IGOs in general. Nevertheless, we are concerned by the fact that the latest draft RySG recommendations do not seem to fully reflect the intent behind the consensus call and related conclusions quoted in the message below. In particular, the previously attached document must, in our view, be consistent with the underlying objectives of following a complete PDP process as well as rectifying a legally flawed approach related to the granting of special protections to two specific organizations. In the light of the above, we suggest the following amendments as per the attached file (see tracked changes). We sincerely hope these can be taken into account as a result of recent discussions. With best regards from Doha, Ricardo De : regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Gomes, Chuck Envoyé : mardi 18 septembre 2012 20:38 À : regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:regycon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Objet : [REGYCON] FW: Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th Importance : Haute Please find below the consensus call that Jeff sent out earlier today to the IOC/RC Discussion Group. My understanding is that the RySG already agreed to answer 'yes' to both of the consensus questions; if anyone has a different view, please let me know. But there is one thing that we need to respond to in Jeff's message; see the last paragraph: "I would also like to collect some more of the rationale for recommendation 1 (recommending the PDP) and also for the moratorium in recommendation 2." There have been some very good contributions to a rationale in the RySG, so I am asking all of you to resend those or add new reasons in the next week or less. I will then compile the input. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:11 AM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th All, As discussed on the last call, we now have the following two questions out for a consensus call so that we put these options out for public comment. I know the Board's resolution from last week was sent to the group yesterday and although I encourage everyone to read that resolution and we will discuss it, I do not believe that that resolution should sway our path. Please speak up if you disagree. If anything, the Board's resolution may be in line with one of the recommendations that we, as a group are considering. 1. The first question is whether we all truly believe that a full PDP is necessary on the IOC/Red Cross marks. Most of the group, save Greg S on behalf of the IPC, did believe that a full pdp on this was necessary. In a full pdp, the legal ramifications of protecting these marks at the second level can be more flushed out and exception processes can be developed (if it is determined that these marks should indeed be protected). In addition, many in the group discussed wanting more research done on whether the marks of these organizations merited differential treatment from other international organizations (which is the subject of a soon-to-be released final Issue Report. 2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal put forth by J. Scott and endorsed by the RySG which recommends the following (with some wording tweaks discussed during the last call): a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC recommendation of September __, 2011 (need to put in exact date) at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. [Note from the Chair: This also would be in line with conservative approach contained in the ICANN Board resolution dated September 14, 2012.] b. Communicate to the GAC: i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international organizations. ii. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. Please make sure that you are able to solicit the feedback necessary to respond to the Consensus Call by September 26th. On the GNSO Council call last week we confirmed that we do have the ability to put this proposal out for public comment. In the meantime, I would also like to collect some more of the rationale for recommendation 1 (recommending the PDP) and also for the moratorium in recommendation 2. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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/> -- -- -- -- Attachment:
IOC_RCRC_DT_Recommendations_v0 3_clean Gf.docx |