Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week
Dear Mark .. Apologies for the delayed reply and for not reflecting your suggestions in earlier versions .. I thought the text we referenced during the conference call was satisfactory and addressed your concerns .. Thanks for providing the text that accurately reflects your suggestion .. I’m fine with the below paragraph and look forward to hearing what other colleagues think .. I just have one question .. Are you suggesting adding this paragraph to the current draft or are you suggesting that this paragraph should replace some other text? You also said: “I also do not feel the text reflects reality if it says that the GNSO and the GAC set about resolving conflicting positions” .. I believe you are referring here to this sentence “Resolving those conflicting positions further delays the process and may be seen as undermining past efforts that have been ongoing for quite some time”, right? .. Do you think your point will be addressed if we change it to “Board trials to resolve those conflicting positions further delays the process and may be seen as undermining past efforts that have been ongoing for quite some time” .. I believe this was the intended meaning, but I stand to be corrected by Mikey, Suzanne and/or Amr who were all part of the drafting team .. Kind Regards --Manal From: CARVELL, Mark [mailto:Mark.Carvell@Culture.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:03 PM To: Manal Ismail; Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week Dear Manal and colleagues As I mentioned in an earlier call, I’ve never been wholly happy with the text in the second paragraph of the Charter which I think underplays the disconnect in working modalities between the GNSO and the GAC. This is the problem we are now seeking to address. I also do not feel the text reflects reality if it says that the GNSO and the GAC set about resolving conflicting positions. The GAC’s interaction on new gTLDs during 2010-12 was almost entirely with the Board, wasn’t it? How about this as a revision to convey the objective we talked about today of facilitating early policy interaction between the GAC and the GNSO in order to build bridges: “The period of review and deliberations by the GAC often necessarily requires public policy consultations within currently over 130 national administrations. Furthermore, the GAC’s process for taking consensus-based decisions takes place only during the concluding stages of policy development and in consultation primarily only with the Board. These processes significantly extend the period for policy approval and implementation and it is quite possible for the GAC ultimately to take a different position from the GNSO and advise the Board against implementing the results of often long and detailed policy-making processes. This problem was identified by the…..” Best regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Creative Economy, Internert and International Team Department for Culture, Media and Sport 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ Dirrect line: +44 (0)20 7211 6062 e-mail: mark.carvell@culture.gsi.gov.uk www.culture.gov.uk From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 21 January 2014 18:10 To: Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week Many thanks Mikey .. Super Quick as usual !! Agree to all enclosed edits .. While we are still on the topic and the deadline allows, allow me to make a couple of minor non-substantial suggestions, also included in track changes .. Adding ‘Description of status quo’ to the below list as it has been an ongoing task for quite some time .. - A mechanism for GAC early engagement in GNSO PDP (co-led by Suzanne Radell and Mikey O’Connor) § Description of status quo § Initial proposal § Issues arising from this proposal § How those issues could be addressed § An agreed documented process Deleting ‘(unless there's preference to have 2 separate sub-groups)’ as this has already been settled I promise to stop going through the charter and providing further comments J !! Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:36 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week hi all, i took an action out of the meeting to quickly turn around a revised version of the charter for a final round of comments. here you are. mikey This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. **************************************************************************** This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it. All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
hi all, i’ve attached draft Charter v.5 — which folds in the comments i saw on the list. i’ve chosen to include the email-thread about Mark’s suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference. do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark’s suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don’t think i’ve done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-) mikey On Jan 22, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Dear Mark ..
Apologies for the delayed reply and for not reflecting your suggestions in earlier versions .. I thought the text we referenced during the conference call was satisfactory and addressed your concerns .. Thanks for providing the text that accurately reflects your suggestion .. I’m fine with the below paragraph and look forward to hearing what other colleagues think ..
I just have one question .. Are you suggesting adding this paragraph to the current draft or are you suggesting that this paragraph should replace some other text?
You also said: “I also do not feel the text reflects reality if it says that the GNSO and the GAC set about resolving conflicting positions” .. I believe you are referring here to this sentence “Resolving those conflicting positions further delays the process and may be seen as undermining past efforts that have been ongoing for quite some time”, right? .. Do you think your point will be addressed if we change it to “Board trials to resolve those conflicting positions further delays the process and may be seen as undermining past efforts that have been ongoing for quite some time” .. I believe this was the intended meaning, but I stand to be corrected by Mikey, Suzanne and/or Amr who were all part of the drafting team ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: CARVELL, Mark [mailto:Mark.Carvell@Culture.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:03 PM To: Manal Ismail; Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week
Dear Manal and colleagues
As I mentioned in an earlier call, I’ve never been wholly happy with the text in the second paragraph of the Charter which I think underplays the disconnect in working modalities between the GNSO and the GAC. This is the problem we are now seeking to address. I also do not feel the text reflects reality if it says that the GNSO and the GAC set about resolving conflicting positions. The GAC’s interaction on new gTLDs during 2010-12 was almost entirely with the Board, wasn’t it? How about this as a revision to convey the objective we talked about today of facilitating early policy interaction between the GAC and the GNSO in order to build bridges:
“The period of review and deliberations by the GAC often necessarily requires public policy consultations within currently over 130 national administrations. Furthermore, the GAC’s process for taking consensus-based decisions takes place only during the concluding stages of policy development and in consultation primarily only with the Board. These processes significantly extend the period for policy approval and implementation and it is quite possible for the GAC ultimately to take a different position from the GNSO and advise the Board against implementing the results of often long and detailed policy-making processes.
This problem was identified by the…..”
Best regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Creative Economy, Internert and International Team Department for Culture, Media and Sport 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ Dirrect line: +44 (0)20 7211 6062 e-mail: mark.carvell@culture.gsi.gov.uk www.culture.gov.uk
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 21 January 2014 18:10 To: Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week
Many thanks Mikey .. Super Quick as usual !! Agree to all enclosed edits .. While we are still on the topic and the deadline allows, allow me to make a couple of minor non-substantial suggestions, also included in track changes ..
Adding ‘Description of status quo’ to the below list as it has been an ongoing task for quite some time ..
- A mechanism for GAC early engagement in GNSO PDP (co-led by Suzanne Radell and Mikey O’Connor) § Description of status quo § Initial proposal § Issues arising from this proposal § How those issues could be addressed § An agreed documented process
Deleting ‘(unless there's preference to have 2 separate sub-groups)’ as this has already been settled
I promise to stop going through the charter and providing further comments J !!
Kind Regards --Manal
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:36 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the charter -- forreview/comment/acceptance by the end of this week
hi all,
i took an action out of the meeting to quickly turn around a revised version of the charter for a final round of comments. here you are.
mikey
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. **************************************************************************** This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it. All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks Mikey, This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly. A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for. That said, I do not anticipate that they are material. As follows: 1. The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval. 2. Ultimately more efficient PDPs Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following? We're now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc. A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable a) Could we substitute "were inconsistent" "may be inconsistent" . To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative. b) Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable? If that's established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK. If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example. Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this. These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, i've attached draft Charter v.5 - which folds in the comments i saw on the list. i've chosen to include the email-thread about Mark's suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference. do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark's suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don't think i've done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-) mikey
hi all, let’s try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can. does anybody have any objection to Jonathan’s points? or anything else in the v.5 draft? i’ll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call. mikey On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Thanks Mikey,
This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly.
A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for. That said, I do not anticipate that they are material.
As follows:
1. The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval. Ultimately more efficient PDPs
Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following?
We’re now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc. A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable
a) Could we substitute “were inconsistent” “may be inconsistent” . To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative. b) Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable? If that’s established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK. If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example.
Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this. These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft.
Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
hi all,
i’ve attached draft Charter v.5 — which folds in the comments i saw on the list.
i’ve chosen to include the email-thread about Mark’s suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference.
do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark’s suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don’t think i’ve done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-)
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Good morning, everyone. I thought it might be useful to provide some additional background information with regard to the reference to the Morality and Public Order issue, as per Jonathan's comment. The GNSO recommendation on this issue was ultimately determined to be unimplementable, as it was premised on a misinterpretation of the provisions using the same terminology in the Paris Convention. The GAC provided briefings to the ICANN Board over the course of several meetings explaining that the particular provision in the Paris Convention provided signatory countries with the basis for an exemption to the terms of the Convention; for example, a signatory country could determine not to provide trademark protection if it determined, based on its national laws, that doing so would be inconsistent with public order and morality. As such, the provisions cannot be transformed into an affirmative basis for any kind of finding with international meaning (which is what the GNSO recommendation entailed). The Board ultimately accepted the GAC's argument that there is no agreed international standard of what constitutes morality and public order, and the original recommendation was modified. I hope this helps clarify why this particular issue is cited. I do have a few minor edits to the opening para for everyone to consider; hope they're not too late. Thanks in advance, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA 202-482-3167 From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:42 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, let's try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can. does anybody have any objection to Jonathan's points? or anything else in the v.5 draft? i'll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call. mikey On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote: Thanks Mikey, This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly. A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for. That said, I do not anticipate that they are material. As follows: 1. The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval. 1. Ultimately more efficient PDPs Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following? We're now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc. A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable a) Could we substitute "were inconsistent" "may be inconsistent" . To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative. b) Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable? If that's established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK. If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example. Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this. These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, i've attached draft Charter v.5 - which folds in the comments i saw on the list. i've chosen to include the email-thread about Mark's suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference. do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark's suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don't think i've done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-) mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks Suzanne, That is indeed helpful and seems to me to be a reasonable basis on which to retain the wording of the illustrative example. Jonathan From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: 27 January 2014 16:16 To: Mike O'Connor; Jonathan Robinson Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call Good morning, everyone. I thought it might be useful to provide some additional background information with regard to the reference to the Morality and Public Order issue, as per Jonathan's comment. The GNSO recommendation on this issue was ultimately determined to be unimplementable, as it was premised on a misinterpretation of the provisions using the same terminology in the Paris Convention. The GAC provided briefings to the ICANN Board over the course of several meetings explaining that the particular provision in the Paris Convention provided signatory countries with the basis for an exemption to the terms of the Convention; for example, a signatory country could determine not to provide trademark protection if it determined, based on its national laws, that doing so would be inconsistent with public order and morality. As such, the provisions cannot be transformed into an affirmative basis for any kind of finding with international meaning (which is what the GNSO recommendation entailed). The Board ultimately accepted the GAC's argument that there is no agreed international standard of what constitutes morality and public order, and the original recommendation was modified. I hope this helps clarify why this particular issue is cited. I do have a few minor edits to the opening para for everyone to consider; hope they're not too late. Thanks in advance, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA 202-482-3167 From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:42 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, let's try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can. does anybody have any objection to Jonathan's points? or anything else in the v.5 draft? i'll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call. mikey On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote: Thanks Mikey, This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly. A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for. That said, I do not anticipate that they are material. As follows: 1. The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval. 2. Ultimately more efficient PDPs Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following? We're now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc. A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable a) Could we substitute "were inconsistent" "may be inconsistent" . To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative. b) Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable? If that's established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK. If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example. Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this. These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, i've attached draft Charter v.5 - which folds in the comments i saw on the list. i've chosen to include the email-thread about Mark's suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference. do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark's suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don't think i've done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-) mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
hi all, hey, there’s a whole hour yet before our call. i wouldn’t want to deny anybody the opportunity for even more last-minute last-minute changes. ;-) here’s the revised Charter for discussion on the call today. i’ve folded in all the changes that came in — with a raised eyebrow on Jonathan’s suggested “Ultimately” in front of “More efficient PDPs” as i don’t quite grok what it gains us. not a strong opinion, just a style thing. here you go — Draft Charter v.6. talk to you soon, mikey On Jan 27, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Thanks Suzanne,
That is indeed helpful and seems to me to be a reasonable basis on which to retain the wording of the illustrative example.
Jonathan
From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: 27 January 2014 16:16 To: Mike O'Connor; Jonathan Robinson Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
Good morning, everyone. I thought it might be useful to provide some additional background information with regard to the reference to the Morality and Public Order issue, as per Jonathan’s comment. The GNSO recommendation on this issue was ultimately determined to be unimplementable, as it was premised on a misinterpretation of the provisions using the same terminology in the Paris Convention. The GAC provided briefings to the ICANN Board over the course of several meetings explaining that the particular provision in the Paris Convention provided signatory countries with the basis for an exemption to the terms of the Convention; for example, a signatory country could determine not to provide trademark protection if it determined, based on its national laws, that doing so would be inconsistent with public order and morality. As such, the provisions cannot be transformed into an affirmative basis for any kind of finding with international meaning (which is what the GNSO recommendation entailed). The Board ultimately accepted the GAC’s argument that there is no agreed international standard of what constitutes morality and public order, and the original recommendation was modified.
I hope this helps clarify why this particular issue is cited.
I do have a few minor edits to the opening para for everyone to consider; hope they’re not too late. Thanks in advance, Suz
Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA 202-482-3167
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:42 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
hi all,
let’s try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can.
does anybody have any objection to Jonathan’s points? or anything else in the v.5 draft? i’ll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call.
mikey
On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Thanks Mikey,
This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now agreed by our group and then shared more broadly.
A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for. That said, I do not anticipate that they are material.
As follows:
1. The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to the Board for approval. Ultimately more efficient PDPs
Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the following?
We’re now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc. A good example of this is the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable
a) Could we substitute “were inconsistent” “may be inconsistent” . To me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being provocative. b) Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were unworkable? If that’s established and universally agreed (I do not know) then OK. If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example.
Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this. These points struck me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft.
Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call
hi all,
i’ve attached draft Charter v.5 — which folds in the comments i saw on the list.
i’ve chosen to include the email-thread about Mark’s suggestions because that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it helpful to have it for reference.
do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark’s suggestion. partly by where i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence. *I* don’t think i’ve done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if you agree. :-)
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mike Many thanks - the text looks fine to me and I appreciate very much that you and colleagues gave my suggestions due consideration. I wonder if adding "ultimately" is desirable: not always the case I grant, but it can often add a negative tone in suggesting a l o n g d r a w n o u t process before the goal is finally achieved! Furthermore on vocabulary, I confess I had to look up the meaning of "grok"! Mark From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 28 January 2014 13:00 To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, hey, there's a whole hour yet before our call. i wouldn't want to deny anybody the opportunity for even more last-minute last-minute changes. ;-) here's the revised Charter for discussion on the call today. i've folded in all the changes that came in - with a raised eyebrow on Jonathan's suggested "Ultimately" in front of "More efficient PDPs" as i don't quite grok what it gains us. not a strong opinion, just a style thing. here you go - Draft Charter v.6. talk to you soon, mikey **************************************************************************** This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it. All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Hi all, and thanks Mikey, for revising the paper yet again. There is one additional edit that I'd like to propose for consideration, and that is to the final sentence in the first para. It should/could be edited to now read: "It is often only then that the Board may request GAC advice". My rationale for this change is that experience has demonstrated very few occasions where the Board has affirmatively sought GAC advice. Thanks, Suz From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:00 AM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call hi all, hey, there's a whole hour yet before our call. i wouldn't want to deny anybody the opportunity for even more last-minute last-minute changes. ;-) here's the revised Charter for discussion on the call today. i've folded in all the changes that came in - with a raised eyebrow on Jonathan's suggested "Ultimately" in front of "More efficient PDPs" as i don't quite grok what it gains us. not a strong opinion, just a style thing. here you go - Draft Charter v.6. talk to you soon, mikey
participants (5)
-
CARVELL, Mark -
Jonathan Robinson -
Manal Ismail -
Mike O'Connor -
Suzanne Radell