|
Dear Stephane and Council colleagues,
Like Kristina I'm in the middle of the IRT meeting, and as such I apologize that I haven't had the chance to consider the issue in greater depth.
First, I fully support the basic premises and fundamental principles expressed in the letter, in particular the concerns regarding special treatment and privileged access. My specific concern is thus not one of principle.
As Kristina has mentioned, the IRT's Draft Report recommends a Globally Protected Marks List (for globally-recognized, registered trademarks) as well as a Uniform Rapid Suspension system for abusive registrations. The nature, procedures and objectives behind these are extremely different from the GAC's proposal regarding geographical names; however, I'm slightly concerned that my being on the IRT could be perceived by some as inconsistent with (and potentially detrimental to) the Council's response to the GAC.
I'd be happy if more experienced heads than mine think this concern is overstated; on the other hand, if that is not the case, is it possible to express support for the general position stated in the letter without approving the specific comments therein?
Thanks and cheers,
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>>> "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 5/12/2009 6:22 PM >>>
Hi Stephane,
Sure.
1. If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the IPC. I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20).
2. It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated as any other objector. As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from participating in the objection process.
3. The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List. It's not a reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's proposal.
4. The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT proposals.
Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter would result in my supporting it. I have no objection to the letter noting that I have abstained. That would allow the letter to be submitted and still note that I have not supported it. It seems like a good compromise to me.
K
Hi Kristina,
Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.
Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on.
Let me know if that helps.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon’s comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be
inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual
obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause:
" All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says:
"In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council’s Friday deadline and considered my draft “good to go”, with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis – William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
|