[council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council

Thu Jun 5 15:35:17 UTC 2014

Could someone confirm the exact language that needs to be added so that we
can update the motion accordingly?

Thanks,

Marika

On 05/06/14 16:29, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

>
>Good points Avri.
>
>I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
>
>If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
>Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34
>To: GNSO Council List
>Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Thanks.
>
>I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
>
>I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but
>could not find the quotables.
>
>
>One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues
>report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not
>expect that either:
>
>- there were the final charters
>- that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free
>standing and open to edits, if necessary.  A final issue report is not
>amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be.  These charter
>offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for
>change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff
>produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
>
>So thanks for separating it into a separating document.  If possible I
>would
>like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for
>charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion.  If
>possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this
>technicality.
>
>thanks
>
>avri
>
>
>On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
>> Hello Avri and everyone,
>> 
>> Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to
>> the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft
>> WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the
>> consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of
>> the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to
>> considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically
>> noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes,
>> therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the
>> ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope
>> 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry
>> into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level
>protections.
>> 
>> Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection
>> for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would
>> simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has
>> registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO.
>> This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e.
>> blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation
>> where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO,
>> it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can
>> - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG
>> reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to
>> enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
>> 
>> (Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG
>> only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1
>> identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for
>> INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations
>> were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
>> 
>> FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the
>> Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG
>> Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few
>> minor
>> changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a
>> recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP
>> Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version
>> and attach it to this email for your reference.
>> 
>> I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
>> 
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM
>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for
>> Council
>> 
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer
>>> Session and get back to you after that.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be
>>>> found as an annex to the final issues report?
>>>>
>>>> Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the
>>>> charter yet.  I don't recall it.
>>>>
>>>> As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the
>>>> scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been
>>>> already been granted.  This concern translates into concern over the
>>>> mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed
>>>> during the IGO/INGO WG.  A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on
>>>> the scope of identifiers that can be considered.  Obviously it goes
>>>> beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do
>>>> not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent
>>>> a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the
>>>> Final Issues report trying to figure that out.  For example I wasn't
>>>> able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for
>>>> considerations?  I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
>>>>
>>>> So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand
>>>> the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to
>>>> explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting.  I thus also do not have
>>>> a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that
>>>> they run the entire gambit.  I  need to understand the scope better
>>>> and may not be ready to vote at this point.
>>>>
>>>> I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening
>>>> the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental
>>>> and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
>so.
>>>> This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just
>>>> missing it.  Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I
>>>> would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>> Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later
>>>>> today. I herewith second the motions.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would
>>>>> very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there
>>>>> might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will
>>>>> enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking
>>>>> ready prior or in the call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation
>>>>> we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this
>>>>> very PDP should be conducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson
>>>>> <jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas
>>>>>> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation
>>>>>> for the Issue Report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to
>>>>>> propose the motions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion
>>>>>> for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
>>>>>
>>>
>> 
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140605/bb92a43c/smime.p7s>