<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p class="MsoNormal"><<Hi Kathy,</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p>We talked about this at
some length on one of our calls. This is not how we did it for the URS
and TM-PDDRP. Those were all done in implementation, not in policy.
Here are the Policy outputs for the first round:
<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm">
https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm</a>.
No mention of URS or TM-PDDRP. Those were implemented as a result of
the ideas of the IRT as refined by the STI. The were not PDP policy
and, like those, there is nothing that
would keep an IRT from exploring a third party challenge mechanism.
The idea may be scrapped by the WG, but if it is it should be scrapped
for accurate reasons.<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p>Best, Paul >><p class="MsoNormal">Paul, we did talk and disagreed about processes awhile back. I've gone back and can see the basis for your confusion. There was an IPC group (with all members selected by the IPC) which met to come up with a set of new RPMs for New gTLDs - and went by the acronym of "IRT" with a different meaning. This IPC-group then presented its result to the GNSO and ICANN at the Sydney meeting, and there was great concern over its proposals presented to the Board (including the first joint ALAC-NCSG resolution). </p><p class="MsoNormal">The Board asked the GNSO to create an expedited policy group to decide which additional RPMs met the approval of the full GNSO -- and on request of the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council created a STI (Special Trademarks Issues Review Team) which met with a pre-determined balance of representation from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups, as well as At-Large and other ACs. Very expedited timeframes.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The Chair of the STI was David Maher of RySG and longtime General Counsel of the Public Interest Registry (implementation review teams, as you know, are run by ICANN Staff.). </p><p class="MsoNormal">The STI - we (as we both remember) - reported back in only a few months to the GNSO Council. Our STI Report was reviewed and adopted by the GNSO Council and later the ICANN Board. Our policy recommendations then went to a traditional "IRT," for working through the details of the policy recommendations (including URS and TMCH) that we had made together. </p><p class="MsoNormal">I include the framing paragraphs of the STI report below and the link -- and absolutely submit that overlapping acronyms make our lives difficult!</p><p class="MsoNormal">Overall, the URS, TMCH and UDRP all pass the criteria for being GNSO-approved policies. And I must return to my concern that at least part of your proposal gives policy-making powers to a future "implementation review team" which is not the way we do things. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Best, Kathy</p><p class="MsoNormal">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">STI Report - </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">"Background and Approach Taken</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">On 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">sent </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">a letter</span><span style="font-size:11.6px;font-family:sans-serif;">1</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">to the GNSO </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">requesting its review </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">of </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">the policy implications of certain trademark protection m</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">echanisms proposed for the </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">New gTLD Program</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">,</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;"> as described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook and accompanying </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">memoranda</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">. </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">Specifically, the Board Letter requested that the GNSO provide input on </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">whether it approves the </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">proposed </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">staff model</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">,</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">or, in the altern</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">ative, the GNSO could </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and implementable. In </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">response, t</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">he</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;"> GNSO </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">adopted a resolution creating the Special Trademarks Issues </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">review team (</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">STI</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">) on 28 October 2009</span><span style="font-size:11.6px;font-family:sans-serif;">2</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">which included </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">repr</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">esentatives </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">fro</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">m </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">each </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">Stakeholder Group</span><span style="font-size:20px;font-family:sans-serif;">, </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">At</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">-</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">Large, Nominating Committee Appointees</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">,</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;"> and the GAC</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">(ide</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">ntified on </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">Annex </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">3)</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">, </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">to </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">analyze the </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">specific rights protection me</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">chanisms that have </span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">been proposed</span><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;"> for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18px;font-family:sans-serif;">Page 2, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</span></p></body></html>