From Mary.Wong Mon Apr 2 23:44:28 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:44:28 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) Message-ID: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Apr 2 23:58:25 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:58:25 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> How is this for start. As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future rounds Resolved The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. avri On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: > Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > 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 > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From k.komaitis Tue Apr 3 13:44:37 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:44:37 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. Thanks KK As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds Resolved The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? To: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) How is this for start. As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future rounds Resolved The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. avri On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: > Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > 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 > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Wed Apr 4 04:00:02 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:00:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> Message-ID: After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds, Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future protective rights, Resolved, The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "International legal personality" test; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. Alain On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some > typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > > Thanks > > KK > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New > gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic > Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were required on > associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the > second level, > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting > the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and > future rounds > > Resolved > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that > covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special > protection at the top and second level; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the > GNSO. > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Senior Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: > http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > To: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC > issue?) > > How is this for start. > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New > gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on > associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the > second level, > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the > same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future > rounds > > Resolved > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that > covers the following issues: > > - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection > at the top and second level; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > > > (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the > proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get > the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > > > Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > > avri > > > On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, > wrote: > > > Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the > IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm > seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about > what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick > this up? > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > > SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Apr 4 04:12:25 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:12:25 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". just a thought avri On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: > > Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, > > Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, > > Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds, > > Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future protective rights, > > Resolved, > > The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "International legal personality" test; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; > - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. > > Alain > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > > Thanks > > KK > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds > > Resolved > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Senior Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > To: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) > > How is this for start. > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future rounds > > Resolved > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > > > (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > > > Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > > avri > > > On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: > > > Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > > SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > From william.drake Wed Apr 4 11:01:21 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:01:21 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> Message-ID: <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > just a thought > > avri > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: >> >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, >> >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds, >> >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future protective rights, >> >> Resolved, >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "International legal personality" test; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Alain >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses >> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law >> University of Strathclyde, >> The Law School, >> Graham Hills building, >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> UK >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 >> Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? >> To: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> How is this for start. >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). >> >> >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: >> >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> Mary W S Wong >>> Professor of Law >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From k.komaitis Wed Apr 4 11:49:38 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:49:38 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> Message-ID: +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. Cheers KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > just a thought > > avri > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: >> >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds, >> >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future >> protective rights, >> >> Resolved, >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International >> legal personality" test; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level; >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Alain >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group >> Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> UK >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? >> To: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting >> (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> How is this for start. >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations >> at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). >> >> >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: >> >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> Mary W S Wong >>> Professor of Law >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, >> http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Mary.Wong Wed Apr 4 19:50:21 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:50:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> ** High Priority ** Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level; Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program, And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos?, Costa Rica, Resolved, The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal personality" test; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; and - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. Thanks! Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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>>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis To:"'William Drake'" , Avri Doria CC:NCSG-Policy Date: 4/4/2012 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. Cheers KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > just a thought > > avri > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: >> >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds, >> >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future >> protective rights, >> >> Resolved, >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International >> legal personality" test; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level; >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Alain >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group >> Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> UK >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? >> To: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting >> (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> How is this for start. >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations >> at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). >> >> >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: >> >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> Mary W S Wong >>> Professor of Law >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, >> http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Apr 4 19:53:27 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:53:27 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Mary ?C I am fine with this. KK From: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU" > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:50:21 +0100 To: "Avri org>" >, Konstantinos Komaitis >, William Drake > Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level; Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program, And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos??, Costa Rica, Resolved, The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal personality" test; - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; and - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. Thanks! Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: Konstantinos Komaitis > To: "'William Drake'" >, Avri Doria > CC: NCSG-Policy > Date: 4/4/2012 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. Cheers KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ???????, 4 ????????? 2012 9:01 ??? To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos??". > > just a thought > > avri > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: >> >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds, >> >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos?? for consideration in granting future >> protective rights, >> >> Resolved, >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International >> legal personality" test; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level; >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Alain >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group >> Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> organizations at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> UK >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: ???????, 2 ????????? 2012 9:58 ?? >> To: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting >> (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> How is this for start. >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations >> at the second level, >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the >> current and future rounds >> >> Resolved >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). >> >> >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, > > wrote: >> >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> Mary W S Wong >>> Professor of Law >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, >> http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Wed Apr 4 22:38:01 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:38:01 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> Message-ID: Thks Avri, I agree that NPOC should not be mentioned. Alain On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal > Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done > without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't > mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > just a thought > > avri > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > > > After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: > > > > Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International > Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting > Team, > > > > Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions were > required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > organizations at the second level, > > > > Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting > the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and > future rounds, > > > > Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was proposed > by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future protective rights, > > > > Resolved, > > > > The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > > > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > protection at the top and second level, including the "International legal > personality" test; > > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level; > > - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of > the GNSO. > > > > Alain > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis < > k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > > Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected > some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > > > > Thanks > > > > KK > > > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the > New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International Olympic > Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group Drafting Team, > > > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were required > on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at > the second level, > > > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations requesting > the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the current and > future rounds > > > > Resolved > > > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > > > > - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special > protection at the top and second level; > > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level > > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the > GNSO. > > > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > > > Senior Lecturer, > > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > > University of Strathclyde, > > The Law School, > > Graham Hills building, > > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > > UK > > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > > > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > > Selected publications: > http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > > Website: www.komaitis.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto: > pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > > To: NCSG-Policy > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC > issue?) > > > > How is this for start. > > > > As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for the > New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > > > > As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required on > associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations at the > second level, > > > > As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization requesting the > same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the current and future > rounds > > > > Resolved > > > > The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > > > > - Definition of type organization that should receive special protection > at the top and second level; > > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level > > - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > > > > > > (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the > proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get > the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > > > > > > Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, > wrote: > > > > > Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the > IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm > seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about > what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick > this up? > > > > > > Cheers > > > Mary > > > > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > > Professor of Law > > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > > > SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > -- > > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > www.schulich.yorku.ca > > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > www.gkpfoundation.org > > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > > Skype: alain.berranger > > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Wed Apr 4 22:39:59 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:39:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Mary, I agree Alain On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM, wrote: > Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no > objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before > COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): > > Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for > the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's > International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) > Drafting Team; > > Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required > on associated policies relating to protections for certain international > organizations at the second level; > > Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that > included requests from international governmental organizations requesting > the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current > and future rounds of the new gTLD program, > > And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights > for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal > Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos?, Costa Rica, > > Resolved, > > The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede > the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal > personality" test; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level; and > - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of > the GNSO. > > Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. > > Thanks! > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > *Professor of Law* > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * Konstantinos Komaitis *To:* "'William > Drake'" , Avri Doria *CC:* NCSG-Policy > *Date: * 4/4/2012 4:50 AM *Subject: * Re: > [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) > +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion > is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can > see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal > Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. > > Cheers > > KK > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Senior Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: > http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? > To: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC > issue?) > > I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, > so this would seem advisable. > > > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal > Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done > without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't > mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > > > just a thought > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > > > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies > >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO > >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names > >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, > >> > >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions > >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those > >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds, > >> > >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was > >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future > >> protective rights, > >> > >> Resolved, > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International > >> legal personality" test; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level; > >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers > of the GNSO. > >> > >> Alain > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis < > k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected > some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> KK > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International > >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group > >> Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were > >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of > the GNSO. > >> > >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > >> > >> Senior Lecturer, > >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM > >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of > >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, > >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > >> UK > >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- > >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: > >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > >> Website: www.komaitis.org > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > >> To: NCSG-Policy > >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting > >> (IOC/RC issue?) > >> > >> How is this for start. > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required > >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations > >> at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > >> > >> > >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the > proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get > the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > >> > >> > >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, > wrote: > >> > >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of > the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm > seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about > what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick > this up? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Mary > >>> > >>> > >>> Mary W S Wong > >>> Professor of Law > >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs > >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > >>> 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 > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership > >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet > >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, > >> http://npoc.org/ > >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >> Skype: alain.berranger > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Wed Apr 4 23:36:50 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:36:50 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs Message-ID: <4F7C78A20200005B00089412@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hello again everyone, A similar motion to ours has just been proposed by Thomas Rickert, the NomCom appointee to the Contracted Parties House (CPH) (see below). In view of the deadline today for motions, I took the liberty of sending ours to the Council as well, noting the similarity and possible overlap, and suggesting that we would welcome discussing the matter with Thomas, with a view toward fusing the motions. In other words, I wanted to put a placeholder on the Council's agenda and get our motion in on time, just in case. I'm not sure if Thomas' motion has the support of the CPH or not. If it does, and if we can agree on common enough ground to combine the motions, there is a good chance the request for an issue report will go through. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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>>> From: Thomas Rickert To:" GNSO" Date: 4/4/2012 2:05 PM Subject: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs St?phane, all, please find below a motion that I had already announced in Costa Rica. Best regards, Thomas Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs Whereas the ICANN Board has granted protection for the Red Cross and the IOC until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global interest in its resolution of June 20, 2011 (2011.06.20.01); Whereas a drafting team of the GNSO Council was established to look at additional top and second level protections for the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement in the current round of new gTLDs in response to a GAC proposal based on the June 20, 2011 Board resolution; Whereas the drafting team is limited to reviewing only top and second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement; Whereas the GNSO Council and the GAC were asked in the letter dated March 11, 2012 by the ICANN Board to provide policy advice in response to a letter dated December 13, 2011 from intergovernmental Organizations on the protection of additional International Governmental Organization (IGO) names and acronyms both on the top and second level; Whereas it is possible that more organizations might request special protection both at the top as well as at the second level for the first and subsequent rounds of applications for generic TLDs. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on protection of names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. *** Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH www.anwaelte.de Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry www.eco.de -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Apr 5 00:25:43 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 14:25:43 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I would like to add the big picture question of "if any" into what the pdp would cover. I don't think we should take for granted that that the answer is that other organizations should be treated the same. So I'd like to tweak it slightly to include the possibility that the answer will be "none" to the question. > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, IF ANY, including the "international legal personality" test; Thank you, Robin On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:50 AM, wrote: > Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): > > Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; > > Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level; > > Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program, > > And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos?, Costa Rica, > > Resolved, > > The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal personality" test; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; and > - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. > > Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. > > Thanks! > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > 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: Konstantinos Komaitis > To: "'William Drake'" , Avri Doria > CC: NCSG-Policy > Date: 4/4/2012 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) > +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. > > Cheers > > KK > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Senior Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? > To: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) > > I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. > > > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > > > just a thought > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > > > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies > >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO > >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names > >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, > >> > >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions > >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those > >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds, > >> > >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was > >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future > >> protective rights, > >> > >> Resolved, > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International > >> legal personality" test; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level; > >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. > >> > >> Alain > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> KK > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International > >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group > >> Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were > >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. > >> > >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > >> > >> Senior Lecturer, > >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM > >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of > >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, > >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > >> UK > >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- > >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: > >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > >> Website: www.komaitis.org > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > >> To: NCSG-Policy > >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting > >> (IOC/RC issue?) > >> > >> How is this for start. > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required > >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations > >> at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > >> > >> > >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > >> > >> > >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: > >> > >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Mary > >>> > >>> > >>> Mary W S Wong > >>> Professor of Law > >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs > >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > >>> 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 > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership > >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet > >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, > >> http://npoc.org/ > >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >> Skype: alain.berranger > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Apr 5 09:46:40 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:46:40 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Agree with Robin BD On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:25 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > I would like to add the big picture question of "if any" into what the pdp would cover. I don't think we should take for granted that that the answer is that other organizations should be treated the same. So I'd like to tweak it slightly to include the possibility that the answer will be "none" to the question. > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, IF ANY, including the "international legal personality" test; > > Thank you, > Robin > > > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:50 AM, wrote: > >> Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level; >> >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program, >> >> And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos?, Costa Rica, >> >> Resolved, >> >> The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal personality" test; >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level; and >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. >> >> Thanks! >> Mary >> >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW >> Two White Street >> Concord, NH 03301 >> USA >> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >> 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: Konstantinos Komaitis >> To: "'William Drake'" , Avri Doria >> CC: NCSG-Policy >> Date: 4/4/2012 4:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) >> +1 - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. >> >> Cheers >> >> KK >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses >> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law >> University of Strathclyde, >> The Law School, >> Graham Hills building, >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> UK >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 >> Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? >> To: Avri Doria >> Cc: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, so this would seem advisable. >> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". >> > >> > just a thought >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: >> > >> >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies >> >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO >> >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names >> >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, >> >> >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions >> >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> >> organizations at the second level, >> >> >> >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those >> >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> >> current and future rounds, >> >> >> >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was >> >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future >> >> protective rights, >> >> >> >> Resolved, >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International >> >> legal personality" test; >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> >> second level; >> >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> >> Alain >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> KK >> >> >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International >> >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group >> >> Drafting Team, >> >> >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were >> >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain >> >> organizations at the second level, >> >> >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations >> >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the >> >> current and future rounds >> >> >> >> Resolved >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> >> >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special >> >> protection at the top and second level; >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> >> second level >> >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, >> >> >> >> Senior Lecturer, >> >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM >> >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of >> >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, >> >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA >> >> UK >> >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 >> >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- >> >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: >> >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? >> >> To: NCSG-Policy >> >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting >> >> (IOC/RC issue?) >> >> >> >> How is this for start. >> >> >> >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for >> >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, >> >> >> >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required >> >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations >> >> at the second level, >> >> >> >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from >> >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization >> >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the >> >> current and future rounds >> >> >> >> Resolved >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: >> >> >> >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special >> >> protection at the top and second level; >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> >> second level >> >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. >> >> >> >> >> >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). >> >> >> >> >> >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, wrote: >> >> >> >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick this up? >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> Mary >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Mary W S Wong >> >>> Professor of Law >> >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE >> >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >> >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu >> >>> 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 >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership >> >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet >> >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, >> >> http://npoc.org/ >> >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> >> Skype: alain.berranger >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Thu Apr 5 11:27:26 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:27:26 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs In-Reply-To: <4F7C78A20200005B00089412@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F7C78A20200005B00089412@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Mary ? during last night?s call, Thomas informed the DT of his motion. This is great and let?s try to work with him on this. I had a brief chat with him in San Jose and discussed that the PDP option is certainly the best one. Let me know how I can help you with this and I agree with Robin?s remark. Cheers KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:37 ?? To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs Hello again everyone, A similar motion to ours has just been proposed by Thomas Rickert, the NomCom appointee to the Contracted Parties House (CPH) (see below). In view of the deadline today for motions, I took the liberty of sending ours to the Council as well, noting the similarity and possible overlap, and suggesting that we would welcome discussing the matter with Thomas, with a view toward fusing the motions. In other words, I wanted to put a placeholder on the Council's agenda and get our motion in on time, just in case. I'm not sure if Thomas' motion has the support of the CPH or not. If it does, and if we can agree on common enough ground to combine the motions, there is a good chance the request for an issue report will go through. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: Thomas Rickert To: " GNSO" Date: 4/4/2012 2:05 PM Subject: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs St?phane, all, please find below a motion that I had already announced in Costa Rica. Best regards, Thomas Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs Whereas the ICANN Board has granted protection for the Red Cross and the IOC until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global interest in its resolution of June 20, 2011 (2011.06.20.01); Whereas a drafting team of the GNSO Council was established to look at additional top and second level protections for the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement in the current round of new gTLDs in response to a GAC proposal based on the June 20, 2011 Board resolution; Whereas the drafting team is limited to reviewing only top and second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement; Whereas the GNSO Council and the GAC were asked in the letter dated March 11, 2012 by the ICANN Board to provide policy advice in response to a letter dated December 13, 2011 from intergovernmental Organizations on the protection of additional International Governmental Organization (IGO) names and acronyms both on the top and second level; Whereas it is possible that more organizations might request special protection both at the top as well as at the second level for the first and subsequent rounds of applications for generic TLDs. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on protection of names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. *** Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH www.anwaelte.de Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry www.eco.de -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Thu Apr 5 16:55:44 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:55:44 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?) In-Reply-To: References: <4F79D76C0200005B00088E63@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8ADE41A3-D599-4BD0-B2B0-1D41CDDA7859@acm.org> <647A9342-FC0B-49A6-8840-3B9327F343D4@uzh.ch> <4F7C438D0200005B0008935F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Maybe we can use "could" instead of "should"...? On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > I would like to add the big picture question of "if any" into what the pdp > would cover. I don't think we should take for granted that that the answer > is that other organizations should be treated the same. So I'd like to > tweak it slightly to include the possibility that the answer will be "none" > to the question. > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > protection at the top and second level, IF ANY, including the > "international legal personality" test; > > > Thank you, > Robin > > > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:50 AM, > wrote: > > Thanks for the quick work and excellent suggestions! If there is no > objection, the following motion is what I'll propose to the Council before > COB today (with a few tweaks to Avri's, Alain's and KK's drafts): > > Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for > the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's > International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) > Drafting Team; > > Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required > on associated policies relating to protections for certain international > organizations at the second level; > > Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that > included requests from international governmental organizations requesting > the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC have received for the current > and future rounds of the new gTLD program, > > And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective rights > for such organizations based on standards such as "international Legal > Personality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San Jos?, Costa Rica, > > Resolved, > > The GNSO Council request an issue report that would precede > the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: > > - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > protection at the top and second level, including the "international legal > personality" test; > - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second > level; and > - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of > the GNSO. > > Please let me know immediately if you object to the proposed motion. > > Thanks! > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > *Professor of Law* > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * Konstantinos Komaitis *To:* "'William > Drake'" , Avri Doria *CC:* NCSG-Policy > *Date: * 4/4/2012 4:50 AM *Subject: * Re: > [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC issue?)+1 > - I don't think mentioning the name of a stakeholder group in a motion is > advisable or is even allowed. Although from a legal point of view I can see > many questions and issues arising from the term 'International Legal > Personality', let's go for it and see how it plays out. > > Cheers > > KK > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Senior Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: > http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: ???????, 4 ???????? 2012 9:01 ?? > To: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting (IOC/RC > issue?) > > I've never seen a motion mention the stakeholder group that suggested it, > so this would seem advisable. > > > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is a good idea to include the idea of the International Legal > Personality' suggestion in the wereas, but perhaps it would be better done > without specifically mentioning NPOC, just like the Portuguese weren't > mentioned. Would it work for NPOC to drop : "by NPOC in San Jos?". > > > > just a thought > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:00, Alain Berranger wrote: > > > >> After consultations with NPOC-EC, this is what I suggest: > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies > >> for the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO > >> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names > >> Discussion Group Drafting Team, > >> > >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further policy discussions > >> were required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> Whereas the comments made coincident with the motion included those > >> from organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds, > >> > >> Whereas the criteria of "International Legal Personality" was > >> proposed by NPOC in San Jos? for consideration in granting future > >> protective rights, > >> > >> Resolved, > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report and the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level, including the "International > >> legal personality" test; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level; > >> - Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers > of the GNSO. > >> > >> Alain > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis < > k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks Mary for the reminder and Avri for drafting this. I corrected > some typos and I am in favour of this being presented as a motion. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> KK > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by GAC/GNSO International > >> Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group > >> Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussions were > >> required on associated policies of extra protection for certain > >> organizations at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RCRC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws and the defined powers of > the GNSO. > >> > >> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > >> > >> Senior Lecturer, > >> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM > >> Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of > >> Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, > >> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > >> UK > >> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > >> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name- > >> Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: > >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > >> Website: www.komaitis.org > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > >> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: ???????, 2 ???????? 2012 9:58 ?? > >> To: NCSG-Policy > >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Motion deadlines for next Council meeting > >> (IOC/RC issue?) > >> > >> How is this for start. > >> > >> As the GNSO council passed a resolution promoting new policies for > >> the New gTLD application Period recommended by thw XYZ Drafting Team, > >> > >> As this motion indicated that further policy discussion were required > >> on associated policies of extra protection for certain organizations > >> at the second level, > >> > >> As the comments made coincident with the motion included those from > >> organizations such as IGOs and other Charitable organization > >> requesting the same protective rights as the IOC/RC received in the > >> current and future rounds > >> > >> Resolved > >> > >> The GNSO Council request an issues report in the possibility of a PDP > that covers the following issues: > >> > >> - Definition of type organization that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level; > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level > >> - Whether such policy is within the bylaws defined powers of the GNSO. > >> > >> > >> (I have not checked the new PDP rules to make sure it contains all the > proper elements for a PDP issues report request, but i wanted to help get > the ball rolling while i avoided something else i was supposed to be doing). > >> > >> > >> Figure it will get delayed at least one meeting just on principle. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 16:44, > wrote: > >> > >>> Is this Wednesday. If we want to propose a PDP or reformulation of > the IOC/RC drafting team, guess one needs to be drafted by then, but I'm > seriously out of pocket, plus we haven't actually had the discussion about > what, exactly, we ought to be proposing and why. Does anyone want to pick > this up? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Mary > >>> > >>> > >>> Mary W S Wong > >>> Professor of Law > >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs > >>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE > >>> SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA > >>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > >>> 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 > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership > >> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet > >> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, > >> http://npoc.org/ > >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >> Skype: alain.berranger > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Thu Apr 5 16:59:41 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:59:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs In-Reply-To: <4F7C78A20200005B00089412@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F7C78A20200005B00089412@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Mary, You did well. Can you please share the email to the Council? Thks, Alain On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM, wrote: > Hello again everyone, > > A similar motion to ours has just been proposed by Thomas Rickert, the > NomCom appointee to the Contracted Parties House (CPH) (see below). In view > of the deadline today for motions, I took the liberty of sending ours to > the Council as well, noting the similarity and possible overlap, and > suggesting that we would welcome discussing the matter with Thomas, with a > view toward fusing the motions. In other words, I wanted to put a > placeholder on the Council's agenda and get our motion in on time, just in > case. > > I'm not sure if Thomas' motion has the support of the CPH or not. If it > does, and if we can agree on common enough ground to combine the motions, > there is a good chance the request for an issue report will go through. > > Cheers > Mary > > > *Mary W S Wong* > *Professor of Law* > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * Thomas Rickert *To:* "< > council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO" *Date: * 4/4/2012 > 2:05 PM *Subject: * [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the > protection of names and acronyms of IGOsSt?phane, all, > please find below a motion that I had already announced in Costa Rica. > > Best regards, > Thomas > > Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms > of IGOs > > Whereas the ICANN Board has granted protection for the Red Cross and the > IOC until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global > interest in its resolution of June 20, 2011 (2011.06.20.01); > > Whereas a drafting team of the GNSO Council was established to look at > additional top and second level protections for the IOC and the Red > Cross/Red Crescent movement in the current round of new gTLDs in response > to a GAC proposal based on the June 20, 2011 Board resolution; > > Whereas the drafting team is limited to reviewing only top and second > level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement; > > Whereas the GNSO Council and the GAC were asked in the letter dated March > 11, 2012 by the ICANN Board to provide policy advice in response to a > letter dated December 13, 2011 from intergovernmental Organizations on the > protection of additional International Governmental Organization (IGO) > names and acronyms both on the top and second level; > > Whereas it is possible that more organizations might request special > protection both at the top as well as at the second level for the first and > subsequent rounds of applications for generic TLDs. > > THEREFORE BE IT: > > > Resolved, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on protection of names > and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. > > > *** > Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law > > Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH > www.anwaelte.de > > Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry > www.eco.de > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Apr 5 22:28:02 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:28:02 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle poll for NCSG Open Policy Meeting April 2012 Message-ID: <4E2A6B91-92DF-4E63-9B3B-B2A32C33ECC5@ipjustice.org> Dear NCSG Policy Committee Members: Time to schedule the April 2012 NCSG Open Policy Meeting. Please mark availability for 10-11 April 2012. Doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/ascb8ma426ghiyqy This meeting is an open discussion between the NCSG Policy Committee (including the NCSG GNSO Councilors and the NPOC & NCUC representatives) and the entire NCSG membership. All NCSG members are welcome to participate via a telephone conference bridge. This meeting is held in conjunction with the 12 April 2012 GNSO Council Meeting. Please mark your availability for 10-11 April 2012 for a 2-hour call. This poll closes EOB in California on Friday 6 April 2012. Thank You! http://www.doodle.com/ascb8ma426ghiyqy Robin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Fri Apr 6 20:23:36 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:23:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on our motion for next week's Council mtg Message-ID: <4F7EEE580200005B000895D6@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi all, Sorry for the radio silence these past couple of days; it's been another of those weeks. Just to consolidate questions and replies in this new message: - our motion was proposed and is posted on the Council webpage: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm - the actual email I sent to the Council proposing the motion and mentioning Thomas' similar motion: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12881.html Updates: - John Berard (BC Councilor) has questioned the usefulness of either motion, saying the Council sent a letter to Steve and Rod proposing that the GAC suggest a way forward to deal with the IGOs' request, which the GNSO will then review. - Stephane wants Thomas and we to consolidate our motions, and has suggested an additional Whereas clause that I think is a good idea: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12890.html - Perhaps of most relevance to our motion: Jeff (in private emails with me and Thomas) is fine with the idea behind the motion, and in particular with amended language in one of our suggestions for the issue report to say: "- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any". I will update the membership on this with a shorter summary. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Apr 6 22:58:42 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:58:42 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on our motion for next week's Council mtg In-Reply-To: <4F7EEE580200005B000895D6@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F7EEE580200005B000895D6@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <233AA732-0C7C-4C52-844C-74CD2B5C789E@acm.org> I think working with Thomas and including the a friendly with Jess makes a lot of sense. btw, if it passes, obviously at the May meeting, i would think it would necessitate a halt in the ad-hoc DTs activities, thought it could be the one to propose the charter tfor the PDPD once the g-council gets that far. thanks for the follow through avri On 6 Apr 2012, at 13:23, wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the radio silence these past couple of days; it's been another of those weeks. Just to consolidate questions and replies in this new message: > > - our motion was proposed and is posted on the Council webpage: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm > > - the actual email I sent to the Council proposing the motion and mentioning Thomas' similar motion: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12881.html > > Updates: > > - John Berard (BC Councilor) has questioned the usefulness of either motion, saying the Council sent a letter to Steve and Rod proposing that the GAC suggest a way forward to deal with the IGOs' request, which the GNSO will then review. > > - Stephane wants Thomas and we to consolidate our motions, and has suggested an additional Whereas clause that I think is a good idea: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12890.html > > - Perhaps of most relevance to our motion: Jeff (in private emails with me and Thomas) is fine with the idea behind the motion, and in particular with amended language in one of our suggestions for the issue report to say: "- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any". > I will update the membership on this with a shorter summary. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > 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 > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From joy Tue Apr 10 04:54:57 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:54:57 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on our motion for next week's Council mtg In-Reply-To: <4F7EEE580200005B000895D6@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F7EEE580200005B000895D6@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <007301cd16bc$f20837e0$d618a7a0$@apc.org> Hi all - likewise apologies for lack of presence on the list in the last few weeks - it's been a little hectic. Anyway, thanks Mary and others for the good work on this motion. Joy From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 5:24 a.m. To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on our motion for next week's Council mtg Hi all, Sorry for the radio silence these past couple of days; it's been another of those weeks. Just to consolidate questions and replies in this new message: - our motion was proposed and is posted on the Council webpage: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm - the actual email I sent to the Council proposing the motion and mentioning Thomas' similar motion: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12881.html Updates: - John Berard (BC Councilor) has questioned the usefulness of either motion, saying the Council sent a letter to Steve and Rod proposing that the GAC suggest a way forward to deal with the IGOs' request, which the GNSO will then review. - Stephane wants Thomas and we to consolidate our motions, and has suggested an additional Whereas clause that I think is a good idea: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12890.html - Perhaps of most relevance to our motion: Jeff (in private emails with me and Thomas) is fine with the idea behind the motion, and in particular with amended language in one of our suggestions for the issue report to say: "- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any". I will update the membership on this with a shorter summary. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Tue Apr 10 05:31:01 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:31:01 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle poll for NCSG Open Policy Meeting April 2012 In-Reply-To: <4E2A6B91-92DF-4E63-9B3B-B2A32C33ECC5@ipjustice.org> References: <4E2A6B91-92DF-4E63-9B3B-B2A32C33ECC5@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <009001cd16c1$fad27c50$f07774f0$@apc.org> Hi Robin - I can't make the time for this meeting as it is 2am here in NZ. However, I will be attending the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday. Joy From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, 6 April 2012 7:28 a.m. To: NCSG-Policy Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle poll for NCSG Open Policy Meeting April 2012 Dear NCSG Policy Committee Members: Time to schedule the April 2012 NCSG Open Policy Meeting. Please mark availability for 10-11 April 2012. Doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/ascb8ma426ghiyqy This meeting is an open discussion between the NCSG Policy Committee (including the NCSG GNSO Councilors and the NPOC & NCUC representatives) and the entire NCSG membership. All NCSG members are welcome to participate via a telephone conference bridge. This meeting is held in conjunction with the 12 April 2012 GNSO Council Meeting. Please mark your availability for 10-11 April 2012 for a 2-hour call. This poll closes EOB in California on Friday 6 April 2012. Thank You! http://www.doodle.com/ascb8ma426ghiyqy Robin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Wed Apr 11 15:22:49 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:22:49 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Missing the call Message-ID: <921A937E-3976-4EF7-81E7-DB9D786BCF47@uzh.ch> I had eye surgery this morning, cataracts, and it is not going as advertised---feel terrible, can't open the eye. I'm going to skip the call and rest. Bill Sent from my iPhone From alain.berranger Wed Apr 11 17:31:38 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:31:38 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NPOC representative appointed to NCSG-Policy Committee Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, At yesterday's NPOC meeting, the following elected NPOC Executive Committee members have been designated to sit on the NCSG Policy Committee, replacing current interim appointees Amber Sterling and the undersigned: - Lori Schulman, Vice Chair, NPOC - Judy Branzelle, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee Best regards, -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Apr 12 00:36:57 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:36:57 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion Message-ID: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> ** High Priority ** Hi gang, Can you please take a look at what Thomas is suggesting? As you'll recall, we're trying to present the Council with just ONE combined motion instead of two competing ones to vote on tomorrow. So, any comments/suggestions? Thanks! Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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>>> From: Thomas Rickert To: Date: 4/11/2012 2:00 PM Subject: motion Hi Mary, please find attached an amended version of the motion, which reflects the exchange of e-mails with Jeff and St?phane's input. I would propose that I withdraw my motion if you accept these changes as friendly. Would that work for you? Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at +49 172 2141 564. Best, Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion issue report.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 115341 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robin Thu Apr 12 01:50:14 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:50:14 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780A3E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <3353865C-25E8-4284-855B-9B173BD77C21@ipjustice.org> Is there a GNSO Councilor who can serve as Wolfgang's proxy tomorrow during the mtg? Has this replacement been worked out yet? I need to send in the form authorizing the proxy asap. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC > Date: April 11, 2012 3:46:32 PM PDT > To: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" , Robin Gross , Konstantinos Komaitis > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , St?phane Van Gelder > > Dear Wolfgang, > > A quick reminder that if you cannot be present at the Council meeting on 12 April 2012 would you please have your Stakeholder Group chair, or an officer appoint a proxy or an alternate for you. > Here is the link to the proxy form: > http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Thu Apr 12 01:56:42 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:56:42 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780A3E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <3353865C-25E8-4284-855B-9B173BD77C21@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Robin for asking the question. Could Bill do this when he has recovered from his pain? w ________________________________ Von: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Gesendet: Do 12.04.2012 00:50 An: NCSG-Policy Cc: Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang Betreff: Fwd: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Is there a GNSO Councilor who can serve as Wolfgang's proxy tomorrow during the mtg? Has this replacement been worked out yet? I need to send in the form authorizing the proxy asap. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Date: April 11, 2012 3:46:32 PM PDT To: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" , Robin Gross , Konstantinos Komaitis Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , St?phane Van Gelder Dear Wolfgang, A quick reminder that if you cannot be present at the Council meeting on 12 April 2012 would you please have your Stakeholder Group chair, or an officer appoint a proxy or an alternate for you. Here is the link to the proxy form: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From Mary.Wong Thu Apr 12 02:34:49 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:34:49 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Message-ID: <4F85DCD90200005B00089CCA@smtp.law.unh.edu> In view of the less than 12 hours left to the meeting and the time zone differences, I'd be happy to take Wolfgang's proxy if he's willing and if he can let me know how he wants to vote :) Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" To: "NCSG-Policy" , "Robin Gross" Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 18:57 >>> "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" 2012-04-11T18:58:15.449595 >>> Thanks Robin for asking the question. Could Bill do this when he has recovered from his pain? w ________________________________ Von: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Gesendet: Do 12.04.2012 00:50 An: NCSG-Policy Cc: Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang Betreff: Fwd: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Is there a GNSO Councilor who can serve as Wolfgang's proxy tomorrow during the mtg? Has this replacement been worked out yet? I need to send in the form authorizing the proxy asap. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC Date: April 11, 2012 3:46:32 PM PDT To: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" , Robin Gross , Konstantinos Komaitis Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , St?phane Van Gelder Dear Wolfgang, A quick reminder that if you cannot be present at the Council meeting on 12 April 2012 would you please have your Stakeholder Group chair, or an officer appoint a proxy or an alternate for you. Here is the link to the proxy form: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 03:56:16 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:56:16 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion In-Reply-To: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mary, colleagues, Please, I insist that the mention of "International Legal Personality" as agreed with NCSG-PC be maintained in a "whereas"... It is too relevant not to be retained as an NPOC/NCSG idea... We worked hard in San Jos? to dig this one out... it does not deter from anything but ensures it will be looked at during the issue report. Thks for the collaboration of all on this specific point. Alain On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > Hi gang, > > Can you please take a look at what Thomas is suggesting? As you'll recall, > we're trying to present the Council with just ONE combined motion instead > of two competing ones to vote on tomorrow. So, any comments/suggestions? > > Thanks! > Mary > > > *Mary W S Wong* > *Professor of Law* > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * Thomas Rickert *To:* < > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> *Date: * 4/11/2012 2:00 PM *Subject: * motionHi > Mary, > please find attached an amended version of the motion, which reflects the > exchange of e-mails with Jeff and St?phane's input. > > I would propose that I withdraw my motion if you accept these changes as > friendly. > > Would that work for you? > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > I can be reached at +49 172 2141 564. > > Best, > Thomas > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Apr 12 06:20:56 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:20:56 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion In-Reply-To: References: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4F8611D80200005B00089D04@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Alain - I noticed that too and will definitely bring it up with Thomas. As you say, it really doesn't affect the substance of the motion and has value as part of a Whereas clause. 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Alain Berranger To: , Date: 4/11/2012 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion Hi Mary, colleagues, Please, I insist that the mention of "International Legal Personality" as agreed with NCSG-PC be maintained in a "whereas"... It is too relevant not to be retained as an NPOC/NCSG idea... We worked hard in San Jos? to dig this one out... it does not deter from anything but ensures it will be looked at during the issue report. Thks for the collaboration of all on this specific point. Alain On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, wrote: Hi gang, Can you please take a look at what Thomas is suggesting? As you'll recall, we're trying to present the Council with just ONE combined motion instead of two competing ones to vote on tomorrow. So, any comments/suggestions? Thanks! Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 ( tel: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: Thomas Rickert To: Date: 4/11/2012 2:00 PM Subject: motion Hi Mary, please find attached an amended version of the motion, which reflects the exchange of e-mails with Jeff and St?phane's input. I would propose that I withdraw my motion if you accept these changes as friendly. Would that work for you? Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at +49 172 2141 564 ( tel:%2B49%20172%202141%20564 ). Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Apr 12 06:29:41 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:29:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NPOC representative appointed to NCSG-Policy Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F8613E50200005B00089D0F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks for the note, Alain, and for your contributions. Welcome to Lori and Judy - we all look forward to continued cooperation between NCUC and NPOC! 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Alain Berranger To: Date: 4/11/2012 10:32 AM Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NPOC representative appointed to NCSG-Policy Committee Dear Colleagues, At yesterday's NPOC meeting, the following elected NPOC Executive Committee members have been designated to sit on the NCSG Policy Committee, replacing current interim appointees Amber Sterling and the undersigned: - Lori Schulman, Vice Chair, NPOC - Judy Branzelle, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee Best regards, -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Thu Apr 12 06:33:51 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:33:51 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NPOC representative appointed to NCSG-Policy Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01c201cd185d$168543f0$438fcbd0$@apc.org> Thanks Alain, and a warm welcome to both Lori and Judy, Joy From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 2:32 a.m. To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NPOC representative appointed to NCSG-Policy Committee Dear Colleagues, At yesterday's NPOC meeting, the following elected NPOC Executive Committee members have been designated to sit on the NCSG Policy Committee, replacing current interim appointees Amber Sterling and the undersigned: - Lori Schulman, Vice Chair, NPOC - Judy Branzelle, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee Best regards, -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Apr 12 09:01:16 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:01:16 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780A3E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <3353865C-25E8-4284-855B-9B173BD77C21@ipjustice.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, I won't be recovered or very talkative; in fact, since it's a bit hard to look at a screen for long I was half thinking of asking for a proxy myself. But I can listen and vote, so sure. So what are we doing on the motions https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+April+2012? Yes delay 1? Mary what's the status with Thomas on 2/3? BD On Apr 12, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Robin for asking the question. Could Bill do this when he has recovered from his pain? > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Gesendet: Do 12.04.2012 00:50 > An: NCSG-Policy > Cc: Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang > Betreff: Fwd: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC > > > Is there a GNSO Councilor who can serve as Wolfgang's proxy tomorrow during the mtg? Has this replacement been worked out yet? I need to send in the form authorizing the proxy asap. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > > Subject: URGENT: Proxy or alternate for GNSO Council meeting 12 April at 11:00 UTC > > Date: April 11, 2012 3:46:32 PM PDT > > To: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" , Robin Gross , Konstantinos Komaitis > > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , St?phane Van Gelder > > > > Dear Wolfgang, > > A quick reminder that if you cannot be present at the Council meeting on 12 April 2012 would you please have your Stakeholder Group chair, or an officer appoint a proxy or an alternate for you. > Here is the link to the proxy form: > http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Apr 12 14:29:39 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:29:39 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Post hoc proxy form and note Message-ID: <1BB5E720-D46C-49DD-9B43-E86F092D3D8C@uzh.ch> Robin, Per the prior thread Wolfgang couldn't make the call and we needed a proxy form to give his vote to me submitted to Glen. I assume you're in bed now, and KK responded that he's out of the office and couldn't fill it in. Glen advised me to ask the Council if everyone was ok with a proxy with a form to be supplied later. From the Adobe chat: ???? Bill Drake: Everyone: Wolfgang let us know he can't make the meeting but due to bad timing a) the NCSG chair is probably in bed and b) the NCUC chair is out of the office and in contact by phone. Would anyone object to Wolgang's proxy being given to me and we'll provide the completed form post hoc? Alan Greenberg: I'm confused. The verson on the Wiki seems to already have the change included! Jeff neuman: I have no objection to what Bill is asking wolf knoben: Bill, ok with me - and the proxy I'm for Jeff neuman: lets just make sure the record is complete with a note after the fact from the NCSG Chair Bill Drake: Thanks for understanding Jeff et al ?????? So if you could please send Glen a proxy form when able and a note to Stephan confirming this has been done that should be sufficient. Now back to the meeting? Thanks Bill From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 16:50:41 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion In-Reply-To: <4F8611D80200005B00089D04@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> <4F8611D80200005B00089D04@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Thks Mary, As this is an NCSG "whereas" that we have agreed to, and it is most important to NPOC's current delicate balance between the old and the new, I respectfully request we stick to that "whereas" reference. I also consider it in the spirit of the NCUC/NPOC statement of collaboration in San Jos?. As both motions seem mutually friendly, it should not be a big compromise by Thomas to accept the NCSG "whereas". Thank you for making sure this happens. I know its getting to the 11th hour, but if Thomas wants to discuss the background around "ILP" I will be pleased to oblige. There is another issue: I believe the "ILP" concept will turn out to be a very useful and fair tool to prevent a "floodgate" of exceptions while being equitable to those IGOs and* also International NGOs (INGOs)* that can meet that robust requirements.* So I am concerned about INGOs too and Thomas' motion mention only IGOs...* Alain On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Alain - I noticed that too and will definitely bring it up with > Thomas. As you say, it really doesn't affect the substance of the motion > and has value as part of a Whereas clause. > > 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more > information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit > law.unh.edu > > > >>> > > *From: * > > Alain Berranger > > *To:* > > , > > *Date: * > > 4/11/2012 8:56 PM > > *Subject: * > > Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion > > Hi Mary, colleagues, > > > Please, I insist that the mention of "International Legal Personality" > as agreed with NCSG-PC be maintained in a "whereas"... It is too relevant > not to be retained as an NPOC/NCSG idea... We worked hard in San Jos? to > dig this one out... it does not deter from anything but ensures it will be > looked at during the issue report. > > > Thks for the collaboration of all on this specific point. > > > Alain > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > >> Hi gang, >> >> Can you please take a look at what Thomas is suggesting? As you'll >> recall, we're trying to present the Council with just ONE combined motion >> instead of two competing ones to vote on tomorrow. So, any >> comments/suggestions? >> >> Thanks! >> Mary >> >> >> *Mary W S Wong* >> >> *Professor of Law* >> >> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* >> >> *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* >> >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH >> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * >> >> Thomas Rickert >> >> *To:* >> >> >> >> *Date: * >> >> 4/11/2012 2:00 PM >> >> *Subject: * >> >> motion >> >> Hi Mary, >> please find attached an amended version of the motion, which reflects the >> exchange of e-mails with Jeff and St?phane's input. >> >> I would propose that I withdraw my motion if you accept these changes as >> friendly. >> >> Would that work for you? >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. >> >> I can be reached at +49 172 2141 564. >> >> Best, >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 16:52:13 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:52:13 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion In-Reply-To: References: <4F85C1390200005B00089CC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> <4F8611D80200005B00089D04@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Sorry about small edit: "... that can meet *those* robust requirements... On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Thks Mary, > > As this is an NCSG "whereas" that we have agreed to, and it is most > important to NPOC's current delicate balance between the old and the new, I > respectfully request we stick to that "whereas" reference. I also consider > it in the spirit of the NCUC/NPOC statement of collaboration in San Jos?. > As both motions seem mutually friendly, it should not be a big compromise > by Thomas to accept the NCSG "whereas". Thank you for making sure this > happens. > > I know its getting to the 11th hour, but if Thomas wants to discuss the > background around "ILP" I will be pleased to oblige. > > There is another issue: I believe the "ILP" concept will turn out to be a > very useful and fair tool to prevent a "floodgate" of exceptions while > being equitable to those IGOs and* also International NGOs (INGOs)* that > can meet that robust requirements.* So I am concerned about INGOs too and > Thomas' motion mention only IGOs...* > > Alain > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, wrote: > >> Thanks, Alain - I noticed that too and will definitely bring it up with >> Thomas. As you say, it really doesn't affect the substance of the motion >> and has value as part of a Whereas clause. >> >> 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more >> information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit >> law.unh.edu >> >> >> >>> >> >> *From: * >> >> Alain Berranger >> >> *To:* >> >> , >> >> *Date: * >> >> 4/11/2012 8:56 PM >> >> *Subject: * >> >> Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: our motion >> >> Hi Mary, colleagues, >> >> >> Please, I insist that the mention of "International Legal Personality" >> as agreed with NCSG-PC be maintained in a "whereas"... It is too relevant >> not to be retained as an NPOC/NCSG idea... We worked hard in San Jos? to >> dig this one out... it does not deter from anything but ensures it will be >> looked at during the issue report. >> >> >> Thks for the collaboration of all on this specific point. >> >> >> Alain >> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, wrote: >> >>> Hi gang, >>> >>> Can you please take a look at what Thomas is suggesting? As you'll >>> recall, we're trying to present the Council with just ONE combined motion >>> instead of two competing ones to vote on tomorrow. So, any >>> comments/suggestions? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> *Mary W S Wong* >>> >>> *Professor of Law* >>> >>> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* >>> >>> *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* >>> >>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH >>> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu 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: * >>> >>> Thomas Rickert >>> >>> *To:* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Date: * >>> >>> 4/11/2012 2:00 PM >>> >>> *Subject: * >>> >>> motion >>> >>> Hi Mary, >>> please find attached an amended version of the motion, which reflects >>> the exchange of e-mails with Jeff and St?phane's input. >>> >>> I would propose that I withdraw my motion if you accept these changes as >>> friendly. >>> >>> Would that work for you? >>> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>> >>> I can be reached at +49 172 2141 564. >>> >>> Best, >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca >> >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org >> >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> >> >> > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 20:39:39 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:39:39 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Colleagues, I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC exchanges that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by NPOC in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of our motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I note with regret that this was not respected. Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International Governmental Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross for instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place and voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, individuals and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not adhering to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation in policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal by NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails to indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC agreement of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be eroded little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: *"And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". *I know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of the International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to GNSO positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now stands, this is very unlikely for a long long time! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 To: liaison6c ** ** Dear All,**** ** ** The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting today, 12 April 2012.**** A recording of the meeting is available at:**** http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions.**** ** ** Thank you.**** Kind regards,**** ** ** Glen**** ** ** ** ** *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still required.**** THEREFORE BE IT:**** Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** THEREFORE BE IT:**** Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** ** ** *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs***** Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants;**** Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any;**** Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica.**** Now therefore be it resolved,**** The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level.**** ** ** Glen de Saint G?ry**** GNSO Secretariat**** gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** http://gnso.icann.org**** ** ** -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Apr 12 21:08:17 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:08:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions. Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. Avri Alain Berranger wrote: >Colleagues, > >I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my >utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: > >First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC >exchanges >that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by >NPOC >in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of >our >motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I >note >with regret that this was not respected. > >Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International >Governmental >Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations >(INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross >for >instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal >Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place >and >voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, >individuals >and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not >adhering >to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". >Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". > >Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of >systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation >in >policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal >by >NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails >to >indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the >concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC >agreement >of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO >Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and >trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be >eroded >little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: >*"And >whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to >such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". >*I >know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of >the >International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal >representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this >generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC >proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work >together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to >GNSO >positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now >stands, >this is very unlikely for a long long time! > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Glen de Saint G?ry >Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM >Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 >To: liaison6c > > >** ** > >Dear All,**** > >** ** > >The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting >today, 12 April 2012.**** > >A recording of the meeting is available at:**** > >http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 > >Please let me know if you have any questions.**** > >** ** > >Thank you.**** > >Kind regards,**** > >** ** > >Glen**** > >** ** > >** ** > >*1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >February 2012 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account >the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract >negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of >that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still >required.**** > >THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com >negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** > >Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >February 2012 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the >current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and >GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** > >THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO >Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** > >** ** > >*Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and >acronyms of IGOs***** > >Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by >supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of >recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific >applicants;**** > >Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections >for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the >GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red >Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** > >Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were >required on associated policies relating to protections for certain >international organizations at the second level, if any;**** > >Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that >included requests from international governmental organizations >requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for >the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** > >And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective >rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in >Costa Rica.**** > >Now therefore be it resolved,**** > >The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility >of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** > >- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** > >- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >second level.**** > >** ** > >Glen de Saint G?ry**** > >GNSO Secretariat**** > >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** > >http://gnso.icann.org**** > >** ** > > > >-- >Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >Member, Board of Directors, CECI, >http://www.ceci.ca >Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >www.schulich.yorku.ca >Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, >www.gkpfoundation.org >NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >Skype: alain.berranger >_______________________________________________ >PC-NCSG mailing list >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 21:51:31 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:51:31 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> Message-ID: Avri, Let see if your assumption is correct or if it was more a case that the language discussed in blending the 2 motions never considered the NPOC "Whereas clause" of the NCSG motion. They were really not competing motions but friendly motions - they just had to be blended... The larger outcome is that by excluding INGOs and considering only IGOs, the resolution will create a huge problem... As it stands the resolution excludes INGOs (important members for NPOC)...but I defer to your experience that says that can be reconsidered in the PDP process. If that is true, fine... strange ways for a resolution, but still fine... The inter-SG relationships require mutual respect, which includes diligent consideration of specific proposals or requests by all involved. For instance, I recall you intervened in the early NCSG motion language when you asked me if I was OK with removing the ILP reference in the resolution proper and keep it only in a "Whereas" paragraph, and I agreed.... but that was obviously a last stand or else ILP would fall off the radar, which is what has happened. Alain On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on > as there were two competing motions. > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will > be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. > > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of > the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. > > Avri > > Alain Berranger wrote: > > >Colleagues, > > > >I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my > >utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: > > > >First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC > >exchanges > >that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by > >NPOC > >in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of > >our > >motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I > >note > >with regret that this was not respected. > > > >Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International > >Governmental > >Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations > >(INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross > >for > >instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal > >Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place > >and > >voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, > >individuals > >and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not > >adhering > >to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". > >Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". > > > >Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of > >systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation > >in > >policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal > >by > >NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails > >to > >indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the > >concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC > >agreement > >of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO > >Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and > >trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be > >eroded > >little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: > >*"And > >whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to > >such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". > >*I > >know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of > >the > >International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal > >representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this > >generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC > >proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work > >together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to > >GNSO > >positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now > >stands, > >this is very unlikely for a long long time! > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >From: Glen de Saint G?ry > >Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM > >Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 > >To: liaison6c > > > > > >** ** > > > >Dear All,**** > > > >** ** > > > >The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting > >today, 12 April 2012.**** > > > >A recording of the meeting is available at:**** > > > >http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 > > > >Please let me know if you have any questions.**** > > > >** ** > > > >Thank you.**** > > > >Kind regards,**** > > > >** ** > > > >Glen**** > > > >** ** > > > >** ** > > > >*1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > > > >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > > > >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >February 2012 (see > > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > > > >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > > > >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account > >the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract > >negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of > >that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still > >required.**** > > > >THEREFORE BE IT:**** > > > >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com > >negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** > > > >Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > > > >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > > > >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >February 2012 (see > > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > > > >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > > > >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the > >current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and > >GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** > > > >THEREFORE BE IT:**** > > > >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO > >Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** > > > >** ** > > > >*Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and > >acronyms of IGOs***** > > > >Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by > >supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of > >recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific > >applicants;**** > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections > >for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the > >GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red > >Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** > > > >Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were > >required on associated policies relating to protections for certain > >international organizations at the second level, if any;**** > > > >Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that > >included requests from international governmental organizations > >requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for > >the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** > > > >And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective > >rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in > >Costa Rica.**** > > > >Now therefore be it resolved,**** > > > >The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility > >of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** > > > >- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** > > > >- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >second level.**** > > > >** ** > > > >Glen de Saint G?ry**** > > > >GNSO Secretariat**** > > > >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** > > > >http://gnso.icann.org**** > > > >** ** > > > > > > > >-- > >Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >Member, Board of Directors, CECI, > >http://www.ceci.ca< > http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > >Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >www.schulich.yorku.ca > >Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > >www.gkpfoundation.org > >NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > >Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > >O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >Skype: alain.berranger > >_______________________________________________ > >PC-NCSG mailing list > >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Apr 12 22:01:33 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:01:33 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> Message-ID: <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people voted against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but first wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on the grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion might imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for retaining its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had shared a URL to an academic article that mentions it, but not so astonishingly our business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. It's just not how things work, and to berate councilors without understanding this is naive and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can sometimes be avoided in the future by undertaking such things as outreach and persuasion. One has to make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a place people see, and then work the other stakeholder groups and do some horse trading and consensus building on language. If people don't know what ILP would mean in this context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants it" is not enough. On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions. > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. > > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. > > Avri > > Alain Berranger wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> >> I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my >> utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: >> >> First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC >> exchanges >> that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by >> NPOC >> in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of >> our >> motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I >> note >> with regret that this was not respected. >> >> Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International >> Governmental >> Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations >> (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross >> for >> instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal >> Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place >> and >> voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, >> individuals >> and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not >> adhering >> to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". >> Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". >> >> Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of >> systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation >> in >> policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal >> by >> NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails >> to >> indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the >> concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC >> agreement >> of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO >> Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and >> trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be >> eroded >> little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: >> *"And >> whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to >> such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". >> *I >> know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of >> the >> International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal >> representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this >> generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC >> proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work >> together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to >> GNSO >> positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now >> stands, >> this is very unlikely for a long long time! >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM >> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 >> To: liaison6c >> >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear All,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting >> today, 12 April 2012.**** >> >> A recording of the meeting is available at:**** >> >> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you.**** >> >> Kind regards,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Glen**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> February 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account >> the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract >> negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of >> that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still >> required.**** >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com >> negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** >> >> Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> February 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the >> current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and >> GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO >> Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and >> acronyms of IGOs***** >> >> Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by >> supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of >> recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific >> applicants;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections >> for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the >> GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red >> Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were >> required on associated policies relating to protections for certain >> international organizations at the second level, if any;**** >> >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that >> included requests from international governmental organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for >> the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** >> >> And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective >> rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in >> Costa Rica.**** >> >> Now therefore be it resolved,**** >> >> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility >> of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry**** >> >> GNSO Secretariat**** >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** >> >> http://gnso.icann.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, >> http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, >> www.gkpfoundation.org >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Thu Apr 12 23:29:24 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:29:24 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Bill, I'm glad you are feeling better... Your testimony is very useful to my comprehension - thank you. Thanks Mary for your valiant effort and apologies for not having assumed you would defend the position we had agreed to... Bill, note than NPOC was not there to do any horse trading. Sorry my frustration appeared to be arrogance...we sometimes say things we do not mean or are interpretated differently as what they are meant to or what we meant to say... like you going to dinner in San Juan!... ;-)... I suppose ignorance about ILP is what it is... is ignorance ever a justification? There is not only one book and one review about ILP but a full body of knowledge that goes back decades... PhD thesis are written about it and international lawyers use it in international cases and courts. What concerns me more is that we ALL (including myself) forgot about INGOs and the resolution ends up being about IGOs only... I hope that can be resolved.... Yes, some INGOs have ILP (that is why I felt it was necessary in a whereas clause) but they are not IGOs.... who was working for INGOs on the Council earlier today? The omission of INGOs may have been inadvertent but it is real. I hope Avri is right and that we can include INGOs in the issues report... Alain On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM, William Drake wrote: > Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people voted > against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but first > wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on the > grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion might > imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for retaining > its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had shared a URL > to an academic article that mentions it, but not so astonishingly our > business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. It's just not how > things work, and to berate councilors without understanding this is naive > and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can sometimes be avoided in the > future by undertaking such things as outreach and persuasion. One has to > make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a place people see, and then > work the other stakeholder groups and do some horse trading and consensus > building on language. If people don't know what ILP would mean in this > context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants it" is not enough. > > > On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on > as there were two competing motions. > > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will > be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. > > > > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of > the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. > > > > Avri > > > > Alain Berranger wrote: > > > >> Colleagues, > >> > >> I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my > >> utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: > >> > >> First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC > >> exchanges > >> that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by > >> NPOC > >> in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of > >> our > >> motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I > >> note > >> with regret that this was not respected. > >> > >> Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International > >> Governmental > >> Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations > >> (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross > >> for > >> instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal > >> Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place > >> and > >> voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, > >> individuals > >> and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not > >> adhering > >> to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". > >> Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". > >> > >> Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of > >> systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation > >> in > >> policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal > >> by > >> NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails > >> to > >> indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the > >> concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC > >> agreement > >> of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO > >> Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and > >> trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be > >> eroded > >> little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: > >> *"And > >> whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to > >> such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". > >> *I > >> know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of > >> the > >> International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal > >> representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this > >> generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC > >> proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work > >> together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to > >> GNSO > >> positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now > >> stands, > >> this is very unlikely for a long long time! > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry > >> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM > >> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 > >> To: liaison6c > >> > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Dear All,**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting > >> today, 12 April 2012.**** > >> > >> A recording of the meeting is available at:**** > >> > >> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 > >> > >> Please let me know if you have any questions.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Thank you.**** > >> > >> Kind regards,**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Glen**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >> February 2012 (see > >> > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >> > >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >> > >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account > >> the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract > >> negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of > >> that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still > >> required.**** > >> > >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >> > >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com > >> negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** > >> > >> Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >> February 2012 (see > >> > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >> > >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >> > >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the > >> current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and > >> GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** > >> > >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >> > >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO > >> Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and > >> acronyms of IGOs***** > >> > >> Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by > >> supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of > >> recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific > >> applicants;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections > >> for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the > >> GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red > >> Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** > >> > >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were > >> required on associated policies relating to protections for certain > >> international organizations at the second level, if any;**** > >> > >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that > >> included requests from international governmental organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for > >> the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** > >> > >> And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective > >> rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in > >> Costa Rica.**** > >> > >> Now therefore be it resolved,**** > >> > >> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility > >> of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** > >> > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Glen de Saint G?ry**** > >> > >> GNSO Secretariat**** > >> > >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** > >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, > >> http://www.ceci.ca< > http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >> www.schulich.yorku.ca > >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > >> www.gkpfoundation.org > >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >> Skype: alain.berranger > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Fri Apr 13 07:53:45 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:53:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F8779190200005B00089FC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hello and sorry I couldn't update everyone before now (was at meetings all day and had an evening work event; got back to emails only around midnight EST). Alain, I hope that you and NPOC will find the MP3 and transcripts of the meeting useful, when they are released. Essentially, they speak to Bill's point of clarification, as well as Avri's. The Council understands clearly why NCSG wanted to include the phrase "international legal personality", but many felt it would create unnecessary confusion to include it expressly in the motion. You'll see that the motion as finally agreed on mentions the possibility of criteria being developed to determine protections for IGOs, thus implicitly acknowledging the possibility of an international legal personality test being developed. As Avri says, there will be ample time and opportunity during the process involved in an Issue Report to point out specific criteria and possible tests, as well as comment on the issue more generally. Frankly, even if an NPOC member was on the Council, I'm pretty sure the result will have been the same. I hope you'll convey the details of what actually happened to NPOC members, since none of us want any misunderstandings arising as a result of the fact that no one listened in to the Council call as it was happening (which is a service ICANN provides) and so it is possible that misinformation may have already occurred. I'll also update the NCSG membership with these details once the MP3 and transcript recordings are available, so that members can verify our representations and statements themselves at that time. Thanks and 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Alain Berranger To: William Drake CC: , Date: 4/12/2012 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 Bill, I'm glad you are feeling better... Your testimony is very useful to my comprehension - thank you. Thanks Mary for your valiant effort and apologies for not having assumed you would defend the position we had agreed to... Bill, note than NPOC was not there to do any horse trading. Sorry my frustration appeared to be arrogance...we sometimes say things we do not mean or are interpretated differently as what they are meant to or what we meant to say... like you going to dinner in San Juan!... ;-)... I suppose ignorance about ILP is what it is... is ignorance ever a justification? There is not only one book and one review about ILP but a full body of knowledge that goes back decades... PhD thesis are written about it and international lawyers use it in international cases and courts. What concerns me more is that we ALL (including myself) forgot about INGOs and the resolution ends up being about IGOs only... I hope that can be resolved.... Yes, some INGOs have ILP (that is why I felt it was necessary in a whereas clause) but they are not IGOs.... who was working for INGOs on the Council earlier today? The omission of INGOs may have been inadvertent but it is real. I hope Avri is right and that we can include INGOs in the issues report... Alain On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM, William Drake wrote: Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people voted against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but first wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on the grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion might imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for retaining its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had shared a URL to an academic article that mentions it, but not so astonishingly our business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. It's just not how things work, and to berate councilors without understanding this is naive and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can sometimes be avoided in the future by undertaking such things as outreach and persuasion. One has to make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a place people see, and then work the other stakeholder groups and do some horse trading and consensus building on language. If people don't know what ILP would mean in this context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants it" is not enough. On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions. > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. > > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. > > Avri > > Alain Berranger wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> >> I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my >> utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: >> >> First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC >> exchanges >> that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by >> NPOC >> in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of >> our >> motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I >> note >> with regret that this was not respected. >> >> Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International >> Governmental >> Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations >> (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross >> for >> instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal >> Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place >> and >> voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, >> individuals >> and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not >> adhering >> to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". >> Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". >> >> Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of >> systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation >> in >> policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal >> by >> NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails >> to >> indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the >> concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC >> agreement >> of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO >> Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and >> trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be >> eroded >> little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: >> *"And >> whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to >> such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". >> *I >> know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of >> the >> International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal >> representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this >> generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC >> proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work >> together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to >> GNSO >> positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now >> stands, >> this is very unlikely for a long long time! >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM >> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 >> To: liaison6c >> >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear All,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting >> today, 12 April 2012.**** >> >> A recording of the meeting is available at:**** >> >> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you.**** >> >> Kind regards,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Glen**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> February 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account >> the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract >> negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of >> that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still >> required.**** >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com >> negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** >> >> Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> February 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the >> current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and >> GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO >> Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and >> acronyms of IGOs***** >> >> Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by >> supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of >> recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific >> applicants;**** >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections >> for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the >> GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red >> Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were >> required on associated policies relating to protections for certain >> international organizations at the second level, if any;**** >> >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that >> included requests from international governmental organizations >> requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for >> the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** >> >> And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective >> rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in >> Costa Rica.**** >> >> Now therefore be it resolved,**** >> >> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility >> of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> second level.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry**** >> >> GNSO Secretariat**** >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** >> >> http://gnso.icann.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, >> http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, >> www.gkpfoundation.org >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824 ); M:+1 514 704 7824 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824 ) >> Skype: alain.berranger >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Fri Apr 13 10:32:12 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:32:12 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F8779190200005B00089FC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> <4F8779190200005B00089FC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <95B34918-C200-47AE-8505-D916ABCE39E2@uzh.ch> Hi I guess Mary and I differently interpreted the level of Council understanding of the ILP notion. But as the transcript shows, Jeff Neuman replied "I still don't remember what the international legal personality test was or what that concept was...I just - it almost sounds like a GNSO endorsement of a topic that I don't recall what it is. So unless we want to define it here, which I'm not sure it's easily definable, I really prefer that to be taken out almost to the point where it's almost - I don't want to have a hostile amendment because I support the rest of it but it's just - it's to that point where unless we define it I don't think it should be mentioned." http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-12apr12-en.pdf Nobody disagreed with that. But no matter. Point is, new ideas have to have groundwork laid to be accepted, and good ideas are rejected all the time for many different reasons. It's a negotiation. Not surprisingly given what the Council just went through with RC/IOC, there has been zero indication that anyone was eager to get into language pertaining to INGOs as well. A motion with that scope was not going to pass. The Council was responding to a specific driver, the IGO request. But while the time wasn't ripe, of course the matter could be brought up later once there's an IR, a dialogue is underway, and people are focusing intensively on the issues. It's an iterative process, not a one-off. Best Bill PS: Dinner in San Juan = ? On Apr 13, 2012, at 6:53 AM, wrote: > Hello and sorry I couldn't update everyone before now (was at meetings all day and had an evening work event; got back to emails only around midnight EST). > > Alain, I hope that you and NPOC will find the MP3 and transcripts of the meeting useful, when they are released. Essentially, they speak to Bill's point of clarification, as well as Avri's. The Council understands clearly why NCSG wanted to include the phrase "international legal personality", but many felt it would create unnecessary confusion to include it expressly in the motion. You'll see that the motion as finally agreed on mentions the possibility of criteria being developed to determine protections for IGOs, thus implicitly acknowledging the possibility of an international legal personality test being developed. As Avri says, there will be ample time and opportunity during the process involved in an Issue Report to point out specific criteria and possible tests, as well as comment on the issue more generally. Frankly, even if an NPOC member was on the Council, I'm pretty sure the result will have been the same. > > I hope you'll convey the details of what actually happened to NPOC members, since none of us want any misunderstandings arising as a result of the fact that no one listened in to the Council call as it was happening (which is a service ICANN provides) and so it is possible that misinformation may have already occurred. I'll also update the NCSG membership with these details once the MP3 and transcript recordings are available, so that members can verify our representations and statements themselves at that time. > > Thanks and 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > >>> > From: > Alain Berranger > To: > William Drake > CC: > , > Date: > 4/12/2012 4:30 PM > Subject: > Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 > Bill, > > I'm glad you are feeling better... Your testimony is very useful to my comprehension - thank you. Thanks Mary for your valiant effort and apologies for not having assumed you would defend the position we had agreed to... Bill, note than NPOC was not there to do any horse trading. Sorry my frustration appeared to be arrogance...we sometimes say things we do not mean or are interpretated differently as what they are meant to or what we meant to say... like you going to dinner in San Juan!... ;-)... > > I suppose ignorance about ILP is what it is... is ignorance ever a justification? There is not only one book and one review about ILP but a full body of knowledge that goes back decades... PhD thesis are written about it and international lawyers use it in international cases and courts. > > What concerns me more is that we ALL (including myself) forgot about INGOs and the resolution ends up being about IGOs only... I hope that can be resolved.... Yes, some INGOs have ILP (that is why I felt it was necessary in a whereas clause) but they are not IGOs.... who was working for INGOs on the Council earlier today? The omission of INGOs may have been inadvertent but it is real. > > I hope Avri is right and that we can include INGOs in the issues report... > > Alain > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM, William Drake wrote: > Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people voted against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but first wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on the grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion might imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for retaining its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had shared a URL to an academic article that mentions it, but not so astonishingly our business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. It's just not how things work, and to berate councilors without understanding this is naive and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can sometimes be avoided in the future by undertaking such things as outreach and persuasion. One has to make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a place people see, and then work the other stakeholder groups and do some horse trading and consensus building on language. If people don't know what ILP would mean in this context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants it" is not enough. > > > On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions. > > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. > > > > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. > > > > Avri > > > > Alain Berranger wrote: > > > >> Colleagues, > >> > >> I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my > >> utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: > >> > >> First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC > >> exchanges > >> that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by > >> NPOC > >> in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of > >> our > >> motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I > >> note > >> with regret that this was not respected. > >> > >> Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International > >> Governmental > >> Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations > >> (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross > >> for > >> instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal > >> Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place > >> and > >> voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, > >> individuals > >> and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not > >> adhering > >> to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". > >> Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". > >> > >> Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of > >> systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation > >> in > >> policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal > >> by > >> NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails > >> to > >> indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the > >> concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC > >> agreement > >> of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO > >> Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and > >> trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be > >> eroded > >> little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: > >> *"And > >> whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to > >> such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". > >> *I > >> know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of > >> the > >> International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal > >> representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this > >> generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC > >> proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work > >> together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to > >> GNSO > >> positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now > >> stands, > >> this is very unlikely for a long long time! > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry > >> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM > >> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 > >> To: liaison6c > >> > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Dear All,**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting > >> today, 12 April 2012.**** > >> > >> A recording of the meeting is available at:**** > >> > >> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 > >> > >> Please let me know if you have any questions.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Thank you.**** > >> > >> Kind regards,**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Glen**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >> February 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >> > >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >> > >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account > >> the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract > >> negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of > >> that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still > >> required.**** > >> > >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >> > >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com > >> negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** > >> > >> Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by > >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** > >> > >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > >> February 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** > >> > >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council > >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of > >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN > >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN > >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** > >> > >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the > >> current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced > >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and > >> GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** > >> > >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** > >> > >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a > >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO > >> Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and > >> acronyms of IGOs***** > >> > >> Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by > >> supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of > >> recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific > >> applicants;**** > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections > >> for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the > >> GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red > >> Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** > >> > >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were > >> required on associated policies relating to protections for certain > >> international organizations at the second level, if any;**** > >> > >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that > >> included requests from international governmental organizations > >> requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for > >> the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** > >> > >> And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective > >> rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in > >> Costa Rica.**** > >> > >> Now therefore be it resolved,**** > >> > >> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility > >> of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** > >> > >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special > >> protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** > >> > >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and > >> second level.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Glen de Saint G?ry**** > >> > >> GNSO Secretariat**** > >> > >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** > >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, > >> http://www.ceci.ca > >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > >> www.schulich.yorku.ca > >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > >> www.gkpfoundation.org > >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > >> Skype: alain.berranger > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Sat Apr 14 00:47:57 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F8779190200005B00089FC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184AD7780B26@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8e704ba7-eb66-4289-adcc-f219d46214ba@email.android.com> <831AAAFC-F32B-432F-A085-D5DE58EC21A5@uzh.ch> <4F8779190200005B00089FC3@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Dear Mary, dear Colleagues, At least one NPOC member who listened on line tell me that you Mary defended the ILP language with your usual skill and persuasiveness. Thank you. I should not have jumped to conclusions without listening to the actual exchanges - for ever learning the benefits of trashing the first email version and resume a second version the next morning!!!! In any case, my humble apologies to Mary of course and to all who have taken offence. So, can INGOs be included with IGOs in this issues report? or do we need another resolution for INGOs? Cheers, Alain Alain On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:53 AM, wrote: > Hello and sorry I couldn't update everyone before now (was at meetings > all day and had an evening work event; got back to emails only around > midnight EST). > > Alain, I hope that you and NPOC will find the MP3 and transcripts of the > meeting useful, when they are released. Essentially, they speak to Bill's > point of clarification, as well as Avri's. The Council understands clearly > why NCSG wanted to include the phrase "international legal personality", > but many felt it would create unnecessary confusion to include it expressly > in the motion. You'll see that the motion as finally agreed on mentions the > possibility of criteria being developed to determine protections for IGOs, > thus implicitly acknowledging the possibility of an international legal > personality test being developed. As Avri says, there will be ample time > and opportunity during the process involved in an Issue Report to point out > specific criteria and possible tests, as well as comment on the issue more > generally. Frankly, even if an NPOC member was on the Council, I'm pretty > sure the result will have been the same. > > I hope you'll convey the details of what actually happened to NPOC > members, since none of us want any misunderstandings arising as a result of > the fact that no one listened in to the Council call as it was happening > (which is a service ICANN provides) and so it is possible that > misinformation may have already occurred. I'll also update the NCSG > membership with these details once the MP3 and transcript recordings are > available, so that members can verify our representations and statements > themselves at that time. > > Thanks and 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 at law.unh.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 at law.unh.edu. For more > information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit > law.unh.edu > > > >>> > > *From: * > > Alain Berranger > > *To:* > > William Drake > > *CC:* > > , > > *Date: * > > 4/12/2012 4:30 PM > > *Subject: * > > Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 > > Bill, > > > I'm glad you are feeling better... Your testimony is very useful to my > comprehension - thank you. Thanks Mary for your valiant effort and > apologies for not having assumed you would defend the position we had > agreed to... Bill, note than NPOC was not there to do any horse trading. > Sorry my frustration appeared to be arrogance...we sometimes say things we > do not mean or are interpretated differently as what they are meant to or > what we meant to say... like you going to dinner in San Juan!... ;-)... > > > I suppose ignorance about ILP is what it is... is ignorance ever a > justification? There is not only one book and one review about ILP but a > full body of knowledge that goes back decades... PhD thesis are written > about it and international lawyers use it in international cases and > courts. > > > What concerns me more is that we ALL (including myself) forgot about > INGOs and the resolution ends up being about IGOs only... I hope that can > be resolved.... Yes, some INGOs have ILP (that is why I felt it was > necessary in a whereas clause) but they are not IGOs.... who was working > for INGOs on the Council earlier today? The omission of INGOs may have been > inadvertent but it is real. > > > I hope Avri is right and that we can include INGOs in the issues > report... > > > Alain > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people >> voted against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but >> first wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on >> the grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion >> might imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for >> retaining its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had >> shared a URL to an academic article that mentions it, but not so >> astonishingly our business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. >> It's just not how things work, and to berate councilors without >> understanding this is naive and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can >> sometimes be avoided in the future by undertaking such things as outreach >> and persuasion. One has to make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a >> place people see, and then work the other stakeholder groups and do some >> horse trading and consensus building on language. If people don't know what >> ILP would mean in this context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants >> it" is not enough. >> >> >> >> On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree >> on as there were two competing motions. >> > Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will >> be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review. >> > >> > I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of >> the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered. >> > >> > Avri >> > >> > Alain Berranger wrote: >> > >> >> Colleagues, >> >> >> >> I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my >> >> utter disappointment, for 3 reasons: >> >> >> >> First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC >> >> exchanges >> >> that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by >> >> NPOC >> >> in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of >> >> our >> >> motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I >> >> note >> >> with regret that this was not respected. >> >> >> >> Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International >> >> Governmental >> >> Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations >> >> (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross >> >> for >> >> instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal >> >> Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place >> >> and >> >> voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, >> >> individuals >> >> and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not >> >> adhering >> >> to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". >> >> Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals". >> >> >> >> Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of >> >> systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation >> >> in >> >> policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal >> >> by >> >> NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails >> >> to >> >> indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the >> >> concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC >> >> agreement >> >> of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO >> >> Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and >> >> trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be >> >> eroded >> >> little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: >> >> *"And >> >> whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to >> >> such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". >> >> *I >> >> know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of >> >> the >> >> International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal >> >> representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this >> >> generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC >> >> proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work >> >> together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to >> >> GNSO >> >> positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now >> >> stands, >> >> this is very unlikely for a long long time! >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> >> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM >> >> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 >> >> To: liaison6c >> >> >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Dear All,**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting >> >> today, 12 April 2012.**** >> >> >> >> A recording of the meeting is available at:**** >> >> >> >> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 >> >> >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions.**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Thank you.**** >> >> >> >> Kind regards,**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Glen**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> *1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process***** >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> >> February 2012 (see >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account >> >> the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract >> >> negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of >> >> that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still >> >> required.**** >> >> >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com >> >> negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.**** >> >> >> >> Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by >> >> staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >> >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> >> February 2012 (see >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council >> >> proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of >> >> the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN >> >> has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN >> >> policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >> >> meeting of 14 March 2012 (see >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);**** >> >> >> >> Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the >> >> current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced >> >> support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and >> >> GNSO resources are available to deal with this. **** >> >> >> >> THEREFORE BE IT:**** >> >> >> >> Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a >> >> charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO >> >> Council meeting after 30 November 2012.**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and >> >> acronyms of IGOs***** >> >> >> >> Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by >> >> supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of >> >> recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific >> >> applicants;**** >> >> >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections >> >> for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the >> >> GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red >> >> Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;**** >> >> >> >> Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were >> >> required on associated policies relating to protections for certain >> >> international organizations at the second level, if any;**** >> >> >> >> Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that >> >> included requests from international governmental organizations >> >> requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for >> >> the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;**** >> >> >> >> And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective >> >> rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in >> >> Costa Rica.**** >> >> >> >> Now therefore be it resolved,**** >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility >> >> of a PDP that covers the following issues:**** >> >> >> >> - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special >> >> protection at the top and second level, if any; and**** >> >> >> >> - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and >> >> second level.**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry**** >> >> >> >> GNSO Secretariat**** >> >> >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org**** >> >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, >> >> http://www.ceci.ca< >> http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> >> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> >> www.schulich.yorku.ca >> >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, >> >> www.gkpfoundation.org >> >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> >> Skype: alain.berranger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Apr 18 00:57:55 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:57:55 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for May NCSG Open Policy Meeting Message-ID: <4DA9622E-8EA8-4291-ABF1-ABA6FF3B4239@ipjustice.org> Doodle Poll: http://www.doodle.com/svpc9pdabrnkc4q8 NCSG Open Policy Meeting for May 2012 Preparation for 10 May GNSO Council Meeting. This poll closes 24 April 2012 (EoB in California) This meeting is an open discussion between the NCSG Policy Committee (including the NCSG GNSO Councilors and the NPOC & NCUC representatives) and the entire NCSG membership. All NCSG members are welcome to participate via a telephone conference bridge. Please mark your availability on the dates 7, 8, 9 May 2012 for a 2-hour conference call. Thank you. http://www.doodle.com/svpc9pdabrnkc4q8 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Fri Apr 20 10:57:16 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:57:16 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IGF Panel Message-ID: <23802AC3-4E04-4963-AE31-E2C7C9459A1D@uzh.ch> Hi everyone, This is a bit of a reach, but I thought I'd check. If I recall correctly, a few years ago NCUC signed on as a co-sponsor to some IGF workshops. I'm wondering whether NCSG might see it's way to do the same. Attached is a proposal I will be uploading later today to the IGF site concerning the ITU's WCIT process revising the ITRs. There's been some bits of discussion on the member list about this, and people expressed concerns. So I thought why not ask?yes it's technically outside the ambit of NCSG, but that doesn't mean we can't express support for a discussion of it, as we have for some other extra-ICANN initiatives (e.g. viz SOPA). If anyone feels like it's not a match, or we just can't get a quick consensus, ok. But I thought I'd float the attached evolving draft and see what you think. Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF 2012 ITR Workshop Proposal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61269 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Tue Apr 24 19:14:08 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:14:08 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Document and motion Deadline 2 May for GNSO Council meeting 10 May at 15:00 UTC Message-ID: <4F9699100200005B0008B3A9@smtp.law.unh.edu> Anything we want to propose, move or defer etc.? Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.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>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry To:"council at gnso.icann.org" Date: 4/24/2012 6:16 AM Subject: [council] Document and motion Deadline 2 May for GNSO Council meeting 10 May at 15:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e. WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Apr 27 01:18:40 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:18:40 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [] Anonymous re-mailer server seized by the US Federal Authorities In-Reply-To: References: <1335383472.20550.YahooMailClassic@web162706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3489D078-D7EA-4F2D-8568-78A6A1D3E955@ipjustice.org> Great - and thanks to all for the expressed support for this important initiative. Unless the NCSG Policy Committee disagrees in the next day, I'll inform APC that NCSG endorses their statement. Best, Robin On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > Welcome Molefi, > > Great to read you @NCUC :-) > > Alex > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Molefi Mafereka Ndlovu wrote: > > Full support & solidarity with the APC's statement. Mayfirst has been a pillar of strength for emmerging alternative media networks in africa! > motho - IMC Africa, NCUC. > --- On Wed, 4/25/12, Dan Krimm wrote: > > From: Dan Krimm > Subject: Re: [] Anonymous re-mailer server seized by the US Federal Authorities > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7:14 PM > > > Me too (NCSG and/or NCUC). > > Dan > > > > At 7:05 AM -0700 4/24/12, Robin Gross wrote: > >Thanks for sending this. I'd support our endorsement of APC's statement > >(either NCSG and/or NCUC) to support anonymous communication rights > >online. The right to communicate anonymously is well-enshrined in the > >UDHR and also the US and other national Constitutions and these attacks > >against Internet users' human rights should be directly challenged. > > > >Thanks, > >Robin > > > > > >On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Any chance we, for some definition of we, want to endorse this? > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all... for APC's pres statement on this go to: > >>> > >>> > >>>http://www.apc.org/en/news/apc-statement-progressive-internet-rights-organisa > >>> > >>> > >>> Best > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 20/04/12 09:56, Norbert Klein wrote: > >>>> FYI > >>>> > >>>> https://help.riseup.net/en/seizure-2012-april > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Norbert Klein > >>>> > >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: