RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary.  We will include this statement.

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


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:04 PM
Cc: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012


Hello everyone,


This is the formal NCSG statement for the record:

The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block" as defined in the 
IOC/IFRC Drafting Team's recommendation for a number of reasons:

1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be made by a 
PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the process rules as 
established in the ICANN by-laws.

2. This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by attempting to 
make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact gathering and 
presenting information to the council that can be used in deciding on the 
viability and charter for such a PDP.

The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible 
outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level. We 
support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal among 
competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved name 
policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP runs its 
course.

The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that also 
demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting such 
special reservations must include a full discussion of all who request such 
reservations.

Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be used 
solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding names to 
the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account.


Thank you.


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 LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>

From:


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


To:


"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>>


CC:


"'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>


Date:


9/27/2012 5:20 PM


Subject:


RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

All,
As Berry and I are working on the public announcement, we now understand the 
NCSG position that they are in favor of the PDP (Recommendation 1), but do not 
agree with Recommendations 2 and 3 with respect to any reservation or 
moratorium on the IOC/RCRC names.  That will be reflected in the post.  I will 
classify it as consensus on Recommendation 1, and strong support on 
Recommendations 2 and 3 with opposition from the NCSG.
I hope that will be acceptable to the group.    If the NCSG can get in an 
official statement tonight that would be great, otherwise I will just note the 
opposition in the introduction note for the public comment.
Thanks for the lively discussion today.

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



From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:11 PM
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012

Thanks Mary.
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:51 PM
Cc: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012


Just to add, as the NCSG alternate and NCUC rep to this DT (and incidentally 
chair of the NCSG Policy Committee) - there has been vigorous discussion on the 
NCSG listserv for quite some time on this matter. While there was disagreement 
and debate at some point about specific points such as the appropriate scope of 
a PDP, the differences between top and second level protections and the 
implications of recommendations applying only to the second round of new gTLD 
applications, most of the participants who commented on the issue either 
opposed or did not favor temporary reservations. Most members who spoke up also 
favored a PDP, with many supporting a broad PDP.


The two sister constituencies both have representatives on the NCSG Policy 
Committee, where the DT's proposals have been circulated. In addition, NPOC was 
the constituency which voiced concerns (including circulating a proposal at the 
Costa Rica meeting) that protection for names of IGOs and other 
internationally-based organizations should also be considered by the GNSO. This 
was raised and discussed during the GNSO Council debates on the IGO issue.


In sum, both NPOC and NCUC members have had time and opportunity to discuss and 
debate the matter. The NCSG Policy Committee has also separately been kept 
updated on the work of the DT. As such, I feel confident in stating that there 
is consensus both within NCUC and the broader NCSG for supporting a PDP that 
includes consideration of the IGO question and similar protection for other 
international organizational names (without any formal comment at this point as 
to how that PDP should be structured) but not for any temporary reservations as 
proposed in the current DT document.


As Avri has said, the NCUC/NCSG participant who was able to be on the last call 
has explained to the membership that he was attempting to convey his personal 
views.


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 LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>

From:


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


To:


Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>>


CC:


"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'avri@xxxxxxx'" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>


Date:


9/27/2012 11:32 AM


Subject:


RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012


Thanks for the quick reply Wendy.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:34 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
> September 2012
>
> On 09/27/2012 09:38 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Wendy,
> >
> > I assume you mean recommendation 2 and any references to it in 3.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Chuck.  I read too quickly.
> We reject the temporary registration block in paragraph 2, and its
> communication as described in 3b.
>
> > Is that a unanimous position from the NCSG?  Did the NPOC take the
> same position?
>
> I have not heard opposition on the NCSG discussion list.
>
> --Wendy
>
> >
> > 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 Wendy Seltzer
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:50 AM
> >> To: Neuman, Jeff
> >> Cc: 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance
> >> 26 September 2012
> >>
> >>
> >> Like Avri, I believe NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration
> >> block."
> >>
> >> We support the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
> >> outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second
> >> level, (but support the PDP as the appropriate place to resolve
> among
> >> competing proposals), so we would not change that before the policy
> >> development runs its course.
> >>
> >> --Wendy
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/27/2012 07:30 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Avri,
> >>>
> >>> We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that
> >> has been received by COB today (wherever you are in the
> world)...just
> >> so Berry and ICANN has it when they come into the office in the
> >> morning Friday,  that said, Wolfgang was on from the NCSG yesterday,
> >> but did not express opposition to the moratorium.  I thought, and we
> >> can check the recording, that he said the NCSG supported the
> >> recommendations.  I could be off base, and Berry was taking notes so
> he can correct me.
> >>>
> >>> In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is
> >>> important
> >> as it sounded like on the call the was indeed a consensus on all of
> >> the recommendations (if just a rough consensus).  So, if you could
> >> confirm the NCSG position that would be great.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent:Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >>> To:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject:Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
> attendance
> >> 26 September 2012
> >>>
> >>> I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.
> >>>
> >>> I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but
> >> do
> >>> support the PDP I also believe that this is the position of the
> NCSG.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.
> >>>
> >>> What is the deadline for opposing statements?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nathalie Peregrine 
> >>> <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues
> >> related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC)
> >> names discussion group teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September
> >> 2012  at 1800 UTC at:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the
> >> GNSO Master Calendar page:
> >>>
> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
> >> <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Attendees
> >>>
> >>> Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter - NCUC
> >>>
> >>> Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
> >>>
> >>> Alan Greenberg - ALAC
> >>>
> >>> Chuck Gomes - RySG
> >>>
> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC
> >>>
> >>> David Heasley - IPC
> >>>
> >>> Jim Bikoff - IPC
> >>>
> >>> Stéphane Hankins - International Committee of the Red
> >> Cross
> >>>
> >>> Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee
> >>>
> >>> Osvaldo Novao -ISPC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Apology :
> >>>
> >>> Avri Doria -  NCSG
> >>>
> >>> J.Scott Evans - IPC
> >>>
> >>> Gregory Shatan - IPC
> >>>
> >>> Mary Wong - NCUC
> >>>
> >>> Brian Peck
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ICANN Staff
> >>>
> >>> Margie Milam
> >>>
> >>> Berry Cobb
> >>>
> >>> Nathalie Peregrine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the
> >> list **
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The mailing list address is
> >>>
> >>> Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc->
> >> dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >
> >>> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> >>> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%20%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-
> >> dt/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nathalie
> >>>
> >>> GNSO Secretariat
> >>>
> >>> gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx> 
> >>> <mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Avri Doria
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> +1 
> >> 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman
> >> Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
> >> Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> >> https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> >> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> +1 617.863.0613 
> Fellow, Berkman
> Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
> Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/