Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

In any case, what we are asking for at this point is an issues report that studies these issues - moving beyond the beatification of RC/IOC.  And one of the nice things about the new issues report methods is that there is a review of the issues report that allows for the community to point out issues that are not being handled properly in the report. 

As a reminder of what is invovled in the issues report (from the PDP final report)

> Recommendation 10. Timeframe for delivery of Preliminary Issue Report (B)
> 
>  The PDP-WT recommends the modification of timeframes included in clause 1 – Creation of
> an Issue Report in Annex A in relation to the development and delivery of an issues report as
> follows:
> 
> Within forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of either (i) an instruction from the Board;
> (ii) a resolution from the GNSO Council; or (iii) a duly supported request from an Advisory
> Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (a “Preliminary Issue Report”). In the
> event the Staff Manager determines that more time is necessary to create the Preliminary
> Issue Report, the Staff Manager may request an extension of time for completion of the
> Preliminary Issue Report, which request should be discussed with the Requestor.

> Recommendation 11. Mandatory Public comment period on Preliminary Issue Report (B)
>  The PDP-WT recommends that there is a mandatory public comment period that follows the
> publication of a Preliminary Issue Report and before the GNSO Council is asked to consider
> the initiation of a PDP. Such a Public Comment period would, among other things, allow for
> additional information that may be missing from the Preliminary Issue Report, or the
> correction or updating of any information in the Preliminary Issue Report. In addition, this
> would allow for members of the ICANN Community to express their views to the Council on
> whether or not to initiate a PDP. Depending on the comments received, ICANN staff would
> include public inputs and any necessary corrections to the Preliminary Issue Report turning
> it into the Final Issue Report and/or summarize the comments received for Council
> consideration. If no comments are received on the Preliminary Issue Report, the content of
> the Final Issue Report should be substantially similar to the Preliminary Issue Report.
> 
> Recommendation 12. Role of workshops prior to initiating a PDP (M)
>  The PDP-WT recognizes the value of workshops on substantive issues prior to the initiation
> of a PDP. It is therefore recommending that information on the potential role of workshops
> and information gathering events be provided in the PDP Manual. In addition, the PDP-WT
> recommends that the GNSO Council should consider requiring such a workshop, on-line or
> face-to-face, on a specific issue during the planning and initiation phase for a specific issue,
> when deemed appropriate. The PDP-WT does not recommend mandating the use of
> workshops prior to initiating a PDP. Furthermore, the PDP-WT recommends that, if a
> workshop is held, invitations and/or announcements for workshops are communicated as
> broadly as possible.

So lots of opportunities for discussion about all of these details, if the Issues report motion succeeds.
And if we keep following the issues and are an active SG on this topic.

avri



On 8 Apr 2012, at 10:22, Alain Berranger wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> The notion of "International Legal Personality (ILP)" as a "litmus test" was introduced in the NCSG Policy Committee's motion after early discussion in San José and later consideration. The Portugal representative at the GAC meeting in San José referred to similar notions in San José without however specifically mentioning "ILP" that I recall - I have not searched for the transcript. 
> 
> It should prove to be a tough test to pass for most international governmental and/or non-governmental organizations, to the exception of UN system organizations. The "UN+10" referred to by Klaus and Avri, is purely notional but a symbolic way of saying it is not going to be a lot (maybe 10?) of non-governmental organizations that can pass the test. It is hard for me to buy the "open floodgate" argument if the "ILP" fliter is applied.
> 
> Please see http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/775.full for a contextual enquiry into the concept of "International Legal Personality" in the form of a 2004 publication by J. E. Nijman from the U. of Amsterdam and review by Robert Kolb of the Université de Neuchâtel. 
> 
> Note the interesting  link  between  "ILP" and "Human Rights" - Robert Klob argues: "The theory of ILP thus comes down to a theory of human rights".
> 
> Alain 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM, klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org> wrote:
> Dear Friends
>  
> Greetings. I think we need to limit the possibility to an absolute minimum, (UN + 10 max), IF ANY !, everything else will as Avri says open up the flood gates and make the whole gTLD system unmanageable because there will we hundreds if not thousands of exceptions and an equal number of legal actions for those who think they deserve them.
>  
> Yours
>  
> Klaus
>  
> From: Robin Gross
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 5:51 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP
>  
> Thanks.  I thought we were going to add "IF ANY" to the clause asking about what other orgs deserve such rights?  I worry that we are inviting a flood gate of requests for privileges by assuming there will be others (rather than ask the question IF there should be others first).
>  
> Robin
>  
>  
> On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone,
>>  
>> The NCSG Policy Committee agreed that, in view of the passage of the motion which adopted the IOC-RC Drafting Team's recommendations for first-round protections for the IOC and RC, the GNSO should consider additional protections - including any that might apply to other international    governmental organizations (IGOs) who have requested similar protections - through a full Policy Development Process (PDP) rather than through an ad-hoc drafting team.
>>  
>> Accordingly, we proposed a motion that will be discussed at the upcoming GNSO Council meeting next week on Thursday 12 April. Coincidentally, a similar (but not identical) motion was also proposed by Thomas Rickert, the Nominating Committee appointee to the Contracted Parties' House. Both motions can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+April+2012.
>>  
>> Between now and the Council meeting, we'll be discussing with Thomas ways to combine both motions so that the Council need only vote on one unified motion. Early indications are that the concept is acceptable to some of the other Council members, so I'm hopeful that if we can successfully fuse both motions, there is a fair chance of its passage.
>>  
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>  
>>  
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>> Two White Street
>> Concord, NH 03301
>> USA
>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>