[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed language edit for the WG charter

[Avri Doria]

fyi

Mary was there for the whole call, I was only there for part.
not really sure i understand the issue.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter 
> Date: 14 November 2012 17:49:50 EST
> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail at berrycobb.com>
> 
> To Members of the IGO-INGO Working Group:
> 
> During the call today a proposal was submitted to the WG by Ricardo Guilherme for the WG to request the GNSO Council to consider revising the draft WG Charter which will be voted on during the Council meeting on 15 November.  The suggested revision is delineated below.   
> 
> Members are asked to state whether they would approve or object to this proposal being submitted to the Council on behalf of this PDP WG.  
> 
> The Council meets at 11:00 UTC on the 15 Nov. and so, WG members are requested to submit their approval/objection no later than 8:00 UTC on 15 Nov.  
> 
> If approved to be submitted on behalf of the WG, then the Chair could submit/present to the Council for its consideration in voting on adopting the draft WG Charter. 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Brian Peck
> Policy Director
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: GUILHERME ricardo <ricardo.GUILHERME at upu.int>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800
> To: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>
> Subject: Proposed language edit for the WG charter 
> 
> Dear Brian,
> 
> As discussed during the call, please find below the proposed remarks and edits to the WG Charter (Section "Mission and scope", third paragraph, first and second indents), to be shared with and potentially submitted by the WG before the GNSO Council call takes place tomorrow.
> 
> An inconsistency exists between the language used in the first indent and the one contained in the second indent, in the sense that there is already an assumption that protection shall be afforded to the two movements/organizations named therein. Moreover, a reference to the initial round of new gTLDs is already provided in the second indent.
> 
> THE CURRENT DRAFT WG CHARTER READS:
> 
> Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to:
>  
> -      Determine the appropriate protection for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gLTDs.
>  
> -      Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these names.
>  
> In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that the WG is supposed to provide, on a comprehensive and objective basis, recommendations concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (including as the case may be the IOC and the RC for the latter category). 
> 
> Consequently, in case the final recommendation is to refuse permanent protection to one entity or another, there is no legal or logical reason to further "develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these names". I may also add that both the IOC and the RC fall within the scope of INGOs.
> 
> In the light of the above, the first indent should be deleted (as it is redundant/duplicating language already present in the second indent) and the second indent read as follows instead:
> 
> "Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of the new gTLDs are appropriate and should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs." 
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Ricardo Guilherme
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121114/4cea234a/attachment.html>