---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Rickert <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, June 23, 2014
Subject: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
To: GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]>


All,
1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please find
attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the Whereas
clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation to possibly
modifying the GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO acronym
identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a
document containing the actual proposed modification for the Council to
discuss forwarding on to the reconvened WG and including some background
information such as the actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice;
and (3) a comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the
proposed modifications side by side.
This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in
preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will
not be voted on till the first meeting following this London gathering, but
we thought it might be useful for the Council to have all the necessary
documentation at the first possible opportunity.
Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the recommended
proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of time we thought it
important for you to be able to review these early!
Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at such
short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent meeting),
there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a few
people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was wondering whether the
current status and the suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In
particular, I am afraid that there is the misconception that a full PDP
might be required for changes to the recommendations. I would therefore
suggest we send a small briefing note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-).
Chances would be that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué.
***
Dear Heather,
following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we would like to briefly
outline both the current status as well as the next steps with respect to
the IGO/RCRC question.
1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of June
16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide notice to
the organization in question is offered for the designations in question
whenever such designation has been registered. Currently, the GNSO policy
recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service.
The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during the
public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, the course
of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider this very question
and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to stress that this
consultation process would presumably take a short period of time. The
GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP.
2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to enable
its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures for an
arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names and acronyms.
We note that this work is already under way with the PDP that has been
initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus,
no action is required with respect to potential modifications of GNSO
Council policy recommendations as the aspect of working on potential
modifications of curative rights protection mechanisms was already included
in the set of recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last
year. While the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections
remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed.
We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters.

Yours sincerely,

***
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Best,
Thomas






-- 
Sent from my Mobile