IOC/Red Cross public comments period

[Joy Liddicoat]

Thanks Mary and all those who have commented so far.
FYI I have at this point indicated informally to the drafting team that I do
not favour the proposed recommendations on the basis that the
recommendations are not the best option for implementing the Board decision
and Applicant Guidebook provisions, go further than matters of
"implementation" and would secure extended protections beyond what is
reasonable (including language protections in recommendation 2 which are
outside the scope of the Board decision).
Despite not agreeing with some of the options under DT discussion (and the
motion proposed) I have nonetheless worked in a spirit of cooperation to
assist discussion of whether the options are workable.

We are also working on a draft submission on the recommendation for NCUC
that we will circulate for comment on this list.

Cheers
Joy


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 6:03 p.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: IOC/Red Cross public comments period

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