[Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection

Mon Jun 19 16:40:29 UTC 2017

Brian and Team –

One point of clarification:

The text Brian cites below does not come from Dr. Crocker’s letter to the GNSO leadership, but is instead contained within the “small group” proposal that was attached to the letter.

Here is the relevant language from Dr. Crocker’s letter (link: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-icann-board-to-council-chairs-04oct16-en.pdf) :

“As we mentioned at the time, staff and Board representatives continue to work with a small group of representatives from the GAC and the IGOs to finalize a proposal regarding IGO acronym protection to be sent to the GAC and the GNSO for consideration. In this regard, I am pleased to inform you that the Board has been notified that the small group has reached consensus on a proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes will be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO. I attach that proposal to this letter for the GNSO’s review.”

With this in mind, I do not think it is appropriate to imply or claim that the ICANN Board has agreed to “…facilitate the creation of a mechanism,”etc.

Thanks—

j.

From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Date: Friday, June 16, 2017 at 4:33
To: Bruce Tonkin <bruce at tonkin.consulting>, "discussion-igo-rc at icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection

Thanks for this update Bruce.

We are keen to see at the Tuesday session in Johannesburg the extent to which the IGO curative WG has incorporated (i) longstanding GAC Advice, (ii) the GAC’s comments to the IGO curative WG Initial Report, and (iii) agreement reached in Copenhagen on the public policy rationale for the protection sought by IGOs.

On a slightly different note, I would again like to recall here ICANN’s agreement in an October 4, 2016 letter from Dr. Crocker to the GNSO Council Chair and Vice-Chairs that “ICANN will facilitate the creation of a mechanism through which an Eligible IGO may obtain a rapid temporary suspension of a domain name in situations where it would not be reasonable for it to use the agreed Dispute Resolution Mechanism [i.e., where] there is an obvious risk of imminent harm from the claimed abuse of such domain name, (e.g. such as fraudulently soliciting donations in the wake of a humanitarian disaster).”

Again, just to briefly recall, the GAC’s comments to the IGO curative WG Initial Report framed this not as a mere repackaging of the existing URS (or UDRP), but as “an emergency relief (e.g., 24-48 hours) domain name suspension mechanism to combat risk of imminent harm” and noted that this previously-agreed “Rapid relief mechanism” falls outside the scope of the IGO curative WG.

Best regards, and safe travels to everyone.

Brian

From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:03 AM
To: discussion-igo-rc at icann.org
Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection

Hello All,

Please note that I am now using a different email address.

I have had a few questions about whether there will be any further facilitated discussion on  IGO protections in Johannesburg.

(1) Regarding the watch list suggestion from the facilitated discussion in Copenhagen.   I am aware that ICANN staff have done some further analysis of the options to provide such a service and will brief the Board.    I expect the Board will consider the information, and hopefully we will hear whether they plan to proceed with some form of service.

(2) The GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process Working Group<https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protections-policy-development-process-working-group> will be holding a 90 min public session at the Johannesburg meeting at 10:30am on Tuesday 27 June 2017.

Details are available at:

https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protections-policy-development-process-working-group

I plan to attend this session to learn more about how the policy work has evolved since the public comment process on their initial report.   I recommend all members of this discussion list that will be in Johannesburg come along as well.

I don't believe there is value in having a further facilitated dialogue until we all know how the work of the working group has progressed since Copenhagen.

I will be happy to chat to anyone after that session, and open to any suggestions on how I can help in any way.

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/attachments/20170619/030cf02b/attachment-0001.html>