A point on the Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

April 5, 2012

      Thomas,

I did not want to react quickly to your motion, but now that I have had
a chance to think about, I do have a request.  Is there a chance you'd
consider recalling the motion?

Here's why I ask.  I think your motion is premature and counter to the
sentiment in the letter Stephane sent to the Board on behalf of the GNSO
Council with regard to the request from the IGO lawyers.

You will note that the letter spoke to the proper path of policy and
that, if the Board were to get advice from the GAC that affected policy,
it would then be referred to the Council.  This motion, even by it
merely being posted to our agenda, let alone going to a vote, makes us
look schizophrenic.

I don't want to look schizophrenic.  I would like to let our initial
plan progress.

I would be more than happy to talk about it.  

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection
of names and acronyms of IGOs
From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>
Date: Wed, April 04, 2012 11:02 am
To: "<council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Stéphane, 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

john＠crediblecontext.com

Thomas Rickert

tags

participants (2)