March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Request to staff for matrix of RAA WG topic issues against negotiations.
by Zahid Jamil March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

Dear Stephane, I would like to initiate a process to request staff for a matrix that shows RAA WG Report identified High, Medium and Low priority items (in sequence as in the report) against the items/issues under negotiations. This would make it easier to identify gaps and progress on the issues identified by the WG. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad

4 8

Re: Joint NCUC-NPOC statement
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Councillors, Please see below a joint statement from NCUC, NPOC and NCSG. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 mars 2012 à 18:47, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit : > Dear Dr. Crocker and Mr. Van Gelder, > > Given the recent questions raised by the Board to the GNSO Council regarding the relationship between the Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non Profit Operations Constituency (NPOC), please find below a joint statement. > > Many thanks > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis > NCUC Chair > > > JOINT NCUC-NPOC STATEMENT > > "Leadership teams from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non Profit Operations Constituency (NPOC) met on Sunday, March 11, 2012. The meeting was extremely fruitful and we discussed our differences and our shared objectives and how to improve working together going forward. The two constituencies plan to cooperate in joint outreach activities to strengthen NCSG and its mission. Initial positive steps were made in order to begin to build trust between the two NCSG constituencies and we are all committed in working together for the promotion of non-commercial interests in the Internet. We believe we can work out our differences and our governance issues internally. > > Signed > Ms. Robin Gross (NCSG Chair) > Mr. Alain Berranger (Acting NPOC Vice Chair) > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis (NCUC Chair)

1 0

Re: IGO Letter and response
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Thanks Rod. I have passed this on to the GNSO Council. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair Le 11 mars 2012 à 17:12, Rod Beckstrom a écrit : > Heather and Stephane, > > As you know, a number of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) sent a > letter to ICANN requesting additional protections under the New gTLD > Program Applicant Guidebook. On behalf of the Board, I send you the > attached letter seeking policy advice from the GAC and the GNSO regarding > the IGO request. Thank you in advance for your consideration and guidance. > Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. > > Warmly, > Rod > > > > > <Open Letter from IGO Legal Counsels[1][2][1].pdf><20120311 Request to GAC and GNSO re IGOs.pdf>

1 0

Remaining IRTP PDPs
by Marika Konings March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Dear All, As requested by Jeff, please find below the overview of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDPs. PDP A and B have been (nearly) completed. PDP C is underway. With regard to Part D (IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements), the following issues are expected to be covered under that PDP: * Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions * Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred * Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf) * Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant For Part E (Penalties for IRTP violations), the following issue is included: * Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy With best regards, Marika PDP ID PDP Category Name Policy Issue #’s CR A New IRTP Issues 1, 3, 12 5, 6, 12 B Undoing Registrar Transfers 2, 7, 9 9, 6 C IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements 5, 6, 15*, 18 8, 9, 13, 16 D IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements 4, 8, 16, 19 7, 10, 10, 14, 16 E Penalties for IRTP Violations 10 10

1 0

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in San José 14 March 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in San José 14 March 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-14mar12-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+March+2012 Date: 14 March 2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29653 Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace.<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin…> As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Publi…> Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC see below for local times San José, Costa Rica 14:00 (13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 15 March 2012: 05:00 Tokyo; 09:00 Wellington) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot physically attend the meeting. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum. Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders. * Registries Stakeholder Group – Keith Drazek * Registrars Stakeholder Group – Graham Chynoweth * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Konstantinos Komaitis · Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC). – Alain Berranger * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes Break 15:20 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: · 16 February 2012 GNSO Council minutes –approved on 6 March 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-16feb12-en.htm 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf · Review main changes. · Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. • Approval of sending the Recommendations Report on IRTP B Rec 8 to the Board. Refer to the Recommendations Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/recommendations-report-irtp-b-8-22feb12-en.pdf Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report,<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP, as a motion on this was deferred from the Feb 16, 2012 Council meeting. Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Drafting Team charter (10 minutes) The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. A Drafting Team was tasked with drafting a Charter for Working Group that will then work on this PDP. The DT is presenting the draft charter to the Council for approval. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-0… Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Joy Liddicoat) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes) On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups. Refer to: Draft Principles for Cross‐Community Working Groups (CWGs) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations. A motion to that effect was made at the Jan 19 meeting and deferred to this meeting. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names (10 minutes) A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names under the new gTLD program. Council must now vote on whether to approve this charter. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf 6.1 Reading of the motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Fake Renewal Notice DT final report (10 minutes) The Fake Renewal Notice Drafting Team is presenting its Final Report to the Council. 7.1 Update (Mikey O'Connor) 7.2 Discussion Item 8: Update on RAA Final Issue Report and Status of Negotiations (10 minutes) Staff will provide a brief overview of the Final Issue Report on the RAA Amendments and the Status Report on the RAA negotiations, and discuss the next steps for the GNSO Council. 8.1 Update (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Update on WHOIS surveys (10 minutes) ICANN policy staff will present an update on four gTLD WHOIS studies, commissioned by the GNSO Council, that are being conducted by independent research entities, and one survey of potential technical requirements for WHOIS that is currently being developed by a GNSO Working Group. 9.1 Update on current work and surveys (Liz Gasster) 9.2 Discussion Item 10: Update on Consumer Trust WG (10 minutes) The GNSO Council chartered the CCTC Working Group in September 2011 at the request of the ICANN Board Resolution (2010.12.10.30). The Consumer Metrics Working Group has since produced a draft Advice Letter defining Consumer, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, & Competition. In addition the letter contains proposed metrics and three year targets; all designed to measure the effectiveness of the new gTLD program by a future AoC Review team. 10.1 Update on Draft Advice Letter (Steve DelBianco) 10.2 Discussion Item 11: Update on The new PDP (20 minutes) In December 2011, the ICANN Board adopted, on the recommendation of the GNSO Council, the revised GNSO Policy Development Process. This session is to introduce the revised GNSO PDP and explain its new features in detail. 11.1 Update (Marika Konings) 11.2 Discussion Item 12: Update on DSSA-WG (10 minutes) This is an update from the DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG). The goals of this item are to 1) update the GNSO Council on the progress of the DSSA-WG; 2) raise awareness of any issues; 3) and solicit input from the GNSO Council. 12.1 Update (Mikey O'Connor) 12.2 Discussion Item 13: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 14:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 22:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

2 2

Re: [council] Fwd: NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Thanks, Stephane. In view of the discussion at our lunch meeting with the Board, I feel obliged to point out that while NPOC does not have a seat on the Council as an individual constituency, they are in fact represented through the SG structure by Councilors elected by the SG as a whole. In the NCSG Charter as approved by the Board, Council elections are done SG-wide and not on a constituency basis. The NCSG framework is similar to that in the Registries SG, where members join the SG and may also, within it, join constituencies (in the Ry SG, these sub-groups are called interest groups). Thanks and cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: Councillors, Please see below the message that Alain Berranger, NPOC Chair, has requested be forwarded to the Council list on his behalf. Thanks, Stéphane > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM > Subject: NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection > To: Glen de Saint Gery <glen(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Glen, > > Below is NPOC proposal under comments from our members. We would ask you to forward to the Board. As we do not have a seat at the GNSO Council, we do not have another way to inform the board about NPOC`s view. > > Context: Given the tension here on the IOC and Red Cross exemption (some of us call it protection) and the Drafting Committee Chair report to GNSO this morning - we find it wise, for the benefit of our current and future NPOC members, as well as the ICANN Community at large, that NPOC promotes and supports a) the proposal from the WG and b), in a broader manner, the generic extension of this protection based on avoiding the setting of a precedent, and based on objective and independantly verifiable criteria to define who or who does not qualify: > > Proposition: > Would receive new gTLD protection: "Any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located, and its members." > > Best, Alain > > -- > 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 > Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee 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 > Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger >

1 0

ccNSO-GNSO Meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

All, Since we didn't find time during the weekend sessions re the agenda for the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting tomorrow I suppose we'll follow the sugestions from the ccNSO: 1. Financial WG update (survey results) 2. GNSO gTLD WHOIS report and especially possible conflicts between new geographic gTLDs with strict national (European) data protection laws and whois requirements by ICANN-Registry contract 3. Study group on the Use of Names for Countries and Territories update 4. Joint Security and Stability Analysis Community Working Group update Please let me know on short term whether from our side specific questions regarding e.g. "JIG" and "IDN" or others may be of interest to raise. I'll forward this to Lesley, the ccNSO chair. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

TR: Session with WHOIS - Documents attached
by Glen de Saint Géry March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Stéphane, Please see the responses provided by the Whois Review Team. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] Envoyé : dimanche 11 mars 2012 22:25 À : Marika Konings; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : Session with WHOIS - Documents attached Importance : Haute Apologies for the delay... Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann

1 0

Fwd: NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Councillors, Please see below the message that Alain Berranger, NPOC Chair, has requested be forwarded to the Council list on his behalf. Thanks, Stéphane > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM > Subject: NPOC Proposal for IOC-RC protection > To: Glen de Saint Gery <glen(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Glen, > > Below is NPOC proposal under comments from our members. We would ask you to forward to the Board. As we do not have a seat at the GNSO Council, we do not have another way to inform the board about NPOC`s view. > > Context: Given the tension here on the IOC and Red Cross exemption (some of us call it protection) and the Drafting Committee Chair report to GNSO this morning - we find it wise, for the benefit of our current and future NPOC members, as well as the ICANN Community at large, that NPOC promotes and supports a) the proposal from the WG and b), in a broader manner, the generic extension of this protection based on avoiding the setting of a precedent, and based on objective and independantly verifiable criteria to define who or who does not qualify: > > Proposition: > Would receive new gTLD protection: "Any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located, and its members." > > Best, Alain > > -- > 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 > Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee 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 > Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger >

1 0

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Protocols for ICRC
by Zahid Jamil March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_r… Found this. Shows that not all countries signed onto all protocols. Example: India only signed onto the 1948 treaty and not to 1977 nor 2005. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad On 11 Mar 2012, at 13:13, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: > This is the question I was ready to ask, but the Queue was closed: > > I asked for a reality check on the value of our work and this motion, in the eyes of the GAC and Olympics/Red Cross. This value should guide how much attention we devote to this, versus the second level question we have yet to address. > > GAC has expressed appreciation for the good work of this Drafting Team. > > But most of us understand that the present Legal Rights and GAC objection mechanisms are sufficient for IOC/RC (or any IGO) to stop a confusingly similar application, in any language or script. > > So the main benefit of this Council motion is to create flexibility for these reservednames to be applied for by IOC and RC. > > Question is, are any Red Cross orgs or Olympics orgs considering using this new flexibility to apply? I think not. > > If not, we are better served to devote our scarce time and attention on Second-Level protections/ Do-Not-Register mechanisms. > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 > > > From: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes(a)redcross.org> > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:50:54 +0000 > To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com>, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan(a)ReedSmith.com> > Cc: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com>, J Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, "<gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org>" <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org>, "<council(a)gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > All, > > We are preparing a formal comment supporting the work of the Drafting team; however, we wanted to quickly respond that RCRC is not seeking to add protection for symbols/designs in the Guidebook - but the names associated with those emblems/symbols and the other names associated with the Movement and its National Societies. > > Debbie > > > Debra Y. Hughes > Senior Counsel > > American Red Cross > 2025 E Street, NW > Washington, D.C. 20006 > 202.303.5356 (p) > 202.303.0143 (f) > Debra.Hughes(a)redcross.org > > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:29 PM > To: Zahid Jamil; Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; J. Scott Evans; Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > This does need to be considered. The Guidebook currently provides protections only for word marks and not for symbols, emblems or designs. To the extent that these are just designs, emblems, logos, etc., then in order to establish uniformity with the other sections of the Guidebook, we may not want to extend protections beyond the word marks. To do otherwise at this point may involve a policy decision we are not charged with making. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:26 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; J. Scott Evans; Neuman, Jeff; Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > many thanks. am going over this. very helpful. > > > > Best regards, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 21 5655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 11 Mar 2012, at 11:12, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan(a)ReedSmith.com> wrote: > > I'm sure the RCRC representatives in the group will answer. In the meantime, this might be helpful with regard to the Red Crystal (from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm) > > 2005 > > In December 2005 during the Diplomatic Conference in Geneva, the States adopted Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, creating an additional emblem alongside the red cross and red crescent. The new emblem - known as the red crystal - resolves several issues that the Movement has faced over the years, including: > > the possibility for countries unwilling to adopt the red cross or the red crescent to join the Movement as full members by using the red crystal; > > the possibility of using the red cross and the red crescent together. > > 2006 > > In June 2006, an International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent met in Geneva to amend the statutes of the Movement to take into account the creation of the new emblem. > > 2007 > > On 14 January 2007, the Third Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions entered into force (six months after the two first countries ratified it). This completes the process of establishing an additional emblem for use by Governments and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. > > Also, it is my understanding that the Red Lion and Sun is a recognized symbol of the RCRC societies in the Geneva Convention and that this was reaffirmed in the 2005 Protocol III mentioned above. > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275| Phone > 917.816.6428| Mobile > 212.521.5450| Fax > gshatan(a)reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > m: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:54 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; J. Scott Evans; Neuman, Jeff; Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > Hi everyone just wanted to repeat the qs I asked at the council yesterday regarding Red Cross extensions that include Red Crystal and Red Lion and Sun and phrases wrt these terms. Wanted see if I could more info on that...basis and protections of the phrases etc. > > > > Best regards, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 21 5655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 11 Mar 2012, at 10:50, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan(a)ReedSmith.com> wrote: > > The fact that the GAC may not have full consensus should not be surprising. It would probably be more surprising if they did -- on this or any other issue. > > As for the OECD, I think their letter was based largely on a set of false premises and a lack of understanding of the rationale for setting the IOC and RCRC apart. I'm sure this was not intentional, but it does discount the substance of their concerns. > > In a sense, I am sympathetic with their desire to bootstrap IGOs onto the proposed protection for the IOC/RCRC. We know that they would like similar protections. It's not surprising that they would try to make an argument that they are just like or better than the IOC/RCRC. The fact that they could not come up with a high quality argument is a sign that it will not be so easy to argue convincingly that IGO's are the same as the IOC/RCRC and thus entitled to the same protection. "Slippery slope" arguments like those made below only work when distinctions are difficult to draw between those included and those excluded. Where there are clear distinctions, as there are here, a slippery slope argument really doesn't hold water, and can even tend to be a "scare tactic." For example, one of the potential Republican nominees for US President, Rick Santorum, has used such specious slippery slope arguments in attempts to support his opposition to gay sex and marriage: > "[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery." -- Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview > > "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality." -- Rick Santorum, AP interview > > Thus, I would tend to discard the slippery slope argument that if IOC and RCRC opens the door to every other group that would like the same protections, and that the only way to deal with future petitioners is to bar the door to the IOC and RCRC. > > Thank you. > > Greg Shatan > > > From: Winterfeldt, Brian [mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:55 AM > To: 'J. Scott Evans'; Neuman, Jeff > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > Dear All, > > I support Jeff as well. I think the path forward should not change unless there is a different directive given by the GAC. > > Best regards, > > Brian > > Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. > Steptoe & Johnson LLP > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:34 AM > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > > Dear All, > > I completely agree with Jeff. Our job at this point is to stat the course. The issues raised by OECD are for the GAC to debate and come to consensus and, even then, we could conclude that NGO protection is unwarranted. > > J. Scott > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > > > > > Konstantinos, > > > > The correspondence yesterday was the same correspondence we have had for months. Lets not jump to any conclusions because of the statements of a VERY small minority of GAC members. Remember, the GAC cannot change course without a consensus of the GAC. If the Chair, the US, the EU and others object to changing course within the GAC, then the GAC cannot by its very definition of consensus change course. > > > > Lets not make more of this issue than it is at this point. Plus, remember, if the GAC were to change course, we could always say no. And yes, there is a rationale to treat the IOC and Red Cross differently than the other OECD organizations (according to the GAC). The GAC letter explained that and it was reiterated by Greg in his insightful e-mail. > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk] > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:27 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > > > Dear all, > > > > I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can only comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do appreciate the argument that the official GAC position has not changed (meaning there is not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking for a change of course) the fact that we heard various GAC members expressing reservations and the potential implications of such protections should certainly be taken on board. This is significant as it manifests that the GAC might not be speaking as one voice in this issue; at the very minimum, these are new considerations that the DT should take on board. > > > > At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that came from the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that it is very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, more will come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of protection. and, one could easily argue that there is potentially a more valid claim for these orgs to have their names protected than the IOC or the Red Cross. Are we really suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for instance, is more important or valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO? > > > > I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the same way we have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, which I believe are significant. > > > > Thanks > > > > Konstantinos > > > > From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> > > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000 > > To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>, Gregory Shatan <GShatan(a)ReedSmith.com<mailto:GShatan@ReedSmith.com>>, "gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:'council(a)gnso.icann.org>'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > > > > > It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather requesting a change of direction before we would consider changing course. We have based our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until she as chair states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only rely on the official request we have. On a side note, I would be very bothered if the GAC changed their request significantly after we had gone to all the effort we have to be responsive to their request and would like to think they wouldn't do that. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:dt@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM > > To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc- dt(a)icann.org<mailto:dt@icann.org>'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:'council(a)gnso.icann.org>' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC I do not think that this is a wise way forward. We cannot allow what a very few members of the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from our overall position and recommendations. I got a full briefing on the GAC discussion yesterday and do not believe we need to change course. > > We should only change our course if during today's discussion between the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so. It is really not fair for us to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC members state. It would be like another group changing their course on what only a few few Councilors state. GAC members, like Councilors, are diverse. Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one way and express their views, that may not impact the view of the COuncil as a whole. > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>; > > council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > > Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC > > Greogry: > > I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the statements below. While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end. > > Wolfgang: > > This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets sp! > ec! > > ial rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. > > And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? > > To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with! > a! > > dditional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later. > > To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument. > > And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the > > 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the board. As an African Union member state I would raise the issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controver! > > sial discussions. > > Thank you. > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03 > pdc1

1 0