Hi,
>> I do not recall the NCSG-PC meeting but it was probably for me to miss.
It was actually for you, as a member of the PC, to request.
The discussion was on the NCSG-PC list. Given the global nature of NCSG, it is almost impossible to schedule meetings that some wont miss because they are in the middle of the night or they can't travel. And when we try to share the pain by rotating the meetings, we find that the majority misses some meetings. Only the insomniacs, those with flexible circadian rhythms and the insane* among us who seem to attend meetings no mater when they are held. It is for this reason that the NCSG EC and PC long ago decided to do business by email and online online methods instead of by teleconference or face to face meeting; i.e. inclusion for all.
It is even mentioned in the NCSG charter, which I beleive must govern our actions in the SG:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+Current+NCSG+Charter
"
2.4.4. NCSG‑EC Work Process
• As much as possible, all NCSG‑EC work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
• email;
• wiki usage (Note such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG‑EC);
• online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools
• When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
• When possible, as enabled ‑ for example ‑ by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG‑EC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified for full consensus before being considered final.
...
2.5.4. NCSG‑PC Work Process
• As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
• email;
• wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG‑PC);
• online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools.
• When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
• When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG‑PC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified before being considered final.
"
Implicit in this is that even if there is a teleconference or meeting (and someone needs to argue that it is necessary, by default they don't happen) if everyone can't be at that teleconference or meeting (the norm), the consensus calls are made by the chairs based on what happens on the email list and not the meeting.
avri
* note the reference to insanity is not meant as an insult to anyone. If someone feels insulted by my indirect reference to their insanity, please accept my apology.
On 3 Oct 2012, at 10:00, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Hi Mary,
>
> Thanks for that clear and comprehensive note. It fully reflects my personal understanding of NPOC's position except for temporary reservation. That said, we must join the NCSG consensus, as Avri has just explained to me - silence is agreement as per our Charter. I do not recall the NCSG-PC meeting but it was probably for me to miss.
>
> Best, Alain
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Everyone, just a few additional notes on this topic:
>
> - throughout the Drafting Team (DT) process, NCSG representatives consistently brought up the broader issue of protections for international governmental organizations (IGOs - as requested by some of these to the ICANN Board recently) and other international non-governmental organizations (as brought up by NPOC members and representatives at the ICANN Costa Rica meeting and this listserv, among other places.)
>
> - in the end, the DT thought that recommending a PDP that specifically includes IGOs and other organizations went beyond its original mandate, which was to deal with IOC and IFRC names. Nonetheless, the transcripts and recordings of the DT meetings will show that the DT acknowledged that since a Final Issue Report on the IGO issue is going to be presented to the GNSO Council, it is up to the Council to decide (1) whether to launch a PDP of whichever type/scope; and (2) the precise scope of such a PDP, e.g. whether to include IGOs and other organizations, as urged by NPOC and some NCUC members.
>
> - at that point, the ICANN community can (and should) weigh in on the merits of a PDP that is broader in scope than what the DT is specifically recommending w.r.t. the IOC/IFRC issue it was tasked to examine.
>
> - NCSG representatives also consistently made it clear that most NCSG members (i.e. NPOC and NCUC) support a PDP, and that many support a broader PDP beyond just the IOC/IFRC issue.
>
> Finally, NCSG representatives submitted a formal minority statement to the DT report. It has been included in the full DT report and can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/msg00605.html
>
> I hope the above clarifies the positions that have been taken, on behalf of the entire NCSG membership, by our representatives to the DT. In sum, we have said that NCSG supports a PDP (and that many of our members from both Constituencies support a broad PDP that includes more than just the IFRC and IOC names), and that we oppose a temporary reservation/block on the IFRC and IOC names in the interim.
>
> These positions are consistent with the discussion that has taken place on this listserv, reflect what we believe to be the general consensus among our members - all of which have had equal and ample opportunity to weigh in on this issue in the past few months - and have been approved by the NCSG's Policy Committee, which operates on a consensus basis and which includes our GNSO Councilors and representatives from both Constituencies.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 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
>
>
> >>>
> From:
> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
> To:
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:
> 10/2/2012 2:55 PM
> Subject:
> [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: October 1, 2012 3:17:26 PM PDT
>> To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team - Recommendations
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-recommendations-28sep12-en.htm
>> Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross Names (RCRC) Drafting Team – Recommendations
>>
>> Comment/Reply Periods (*)
>> Important Information Links
>> Comment Open:
>> 28 September 2012
>> Comment Close:
>> 19 October 2012
>> Close Time (UTC):
>> 23:59 UTC
>> Public Comment Announcement
>> Reply Open:
>> 20 October 2012
>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
>> Reply Close:
>> 9 November 2012
>> View Comments Submitted
>> Close Time (UTC):
>> 23:59 UTC
>> Report of Public Comments
>> Brief Overview
>> Originating Organization:
>> GNSO
>> Categories/Tags:
>> • Top-Level Domains
>> • Second-Level Domains
>> • Policy Process
>> • Intellectual Property
>> Purpose (Brief):
>> The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) requests community comment on the latest recommendations created for second level protections of names relating to the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.
>> Current Status:
>> Open for Public Comment
>> Next Steps:
>> The Drafting Team's recommendations will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum and via final agreement of the Drafting Team members. Final recommendations will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
>> Staff Contact:
>> Brian Peck, Margie Milam
>> Email:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Detailed Information
>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
>> As a result of IOC/RCRC being granted top level protections for the first round of the new gTLD program, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was further tasked to consider whether the same protections should be afforded at the second level prior to the first delegation of a new gTLD. Since the beginning of 2012, the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team (DT) has deliberated about possible second level protections and how to respond to the GAC's request for protections. The DT now submits the recommendations formulated by the DT and makes them available for public comment before final submission to the GNSO Council.
>> Note from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Chair:
>> These recommendations are being posted at the request of the Drafting Team. Although some members of the Drafting Team believe that a PDP is not necessary at this time to grant second level protections for the IOC/RCRC, a consensus of the DT does in fact agree that a PDP represents an appropriate compromise on this issue. With respect to the Recommendations #2 and #3 (temporary protection at second level), there is strong support amongst the Drafting Team for those recommendations with opposition from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert. A copy of statements from certain constituencies, stakeholder groups, and/or individuals is attached as appendices to the recommendations.
>> Section II: Background
>> The ICANN Board had requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded to the RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the Board authorized the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program "which includes the following elements: "the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook, subject to the revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: ...(b) incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest....."
>> During September 2011, the GAC also sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level. In the same month, section 2.2.1.2.3 was added to the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated 19 September 2011.
>> As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO Council created a call for volunteers to form a drafting team about creating a response to the GAC. The IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed has since created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level and includes an outline for a response to the GAC from the GNSO. The Drafting Team now wishes to solicit feedback from the community prior to submission of the recommendations to the GNSO Council.
>> See the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team page for more detail at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm
>> Section III: Document and Resource Links
>> IOC/RCRC Drafting Team Recommendations Report [PDF, 152 KB]
>> Section IV: Additional Information
>> None
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint Géry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
