ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-iocrc-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012
  • From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:01:26 -0400

Please correct this as below, to substitute reference to "recommendation
2" for the reference to "3b" (as noted earlier in this thread):

On 09/27/2012 07:03 PM, Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone, 
> 
> This is the formal NCSG statement for the record:
> 
> The NCSG rejects the "temporary reservation" as described in
recommendation 2 of the
> the IOC/IFRC Drafting Team's recommendation for a number of reasons:

Thanks,
--Wendy

> 
> 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
> 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> 
> 
> To: 
> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx"
> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
> CC: 
> "'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <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] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:11 PM
> To: 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] On Behalf Of
> 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
> 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>  
> 
> To: 
> Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
> 
> CC: 
> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'avri@xxxxxxx'"
> <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <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] 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)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  -----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> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> St├ęphane 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: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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Avri Doria
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wendy Seltzer -- 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 +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 +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/



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy