IOC/Red Cross public comments period

[Nicolas Adam]

Thx Mary,

I was just finishing an edit on my earlier comments, and have just
pressed send.

Nicolas

On 3/6/2012 12:02 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> Hi Nicolas and everyone,
>
> The current public comment period was launched by the GNSO, since the group that debated and drafted the proposals was formed by the GNSO via Council agreement in Dakar. The Council's view was that the GNSO shoukd respond to the GAC letter that proposed a number of protections at the top and second level for the IOC and RC, particularly since the Board resolution calling for temporary top level protections in this current expansion round also specified that the GNSO and GAC should work together to develop policy for future rounds.
>
> If the Council decides, whether in Costa Rica or after, to act on the current recommendation, it will be by way of formal resolution that will be sent to the Board and the GAC.
>
> BTW the debate about possible second level protections is just starting to get going. The current call for public comment is for top level protections only, so the second level issue is still pending and will no doubt lead to much more extensive discussion stretching beyond the Costa Rica meeting next week.
>
> I hope this helps! Thanks to all members who have weighed in with some tremendously helpful and constructive comments.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> "Nicolas Adam<nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM>"<nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM>  wrote:
>
>
> I have decided in favor of GNSO.
>
> N
>
> On 3/5/2012 11:18 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> Which body is receiving our comments? ICANN's board or GNSO?
>>
>> Thx
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 3/3/2012 11:49 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The public comments period concerning the special protection for the
>>> Red Cross and Olympic terms has now opened and can be accessed
>>> through
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.htm
>>>
>>> As you know this is an issue which has raised and continues to raise
>>> significant issues relating to transparency, multistakeholder input ,
>>> the role of the GAC and its relationship with the GNSO as well as
>>> issues relating to the expansion of existing rights to the potential
>>> detriment of other rights holders.
>>>
>>> May I request that everybody who has commented, and everyone who
>>> wanted to comment, to please do so? The timeframe is considerably
>>> strict, but at some point there was even a suggestion to skip it!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Konstantinos