[council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP
Robin Gross
robin at ipjustice.org
Wed Dec 19 01:39:33 UTC 2007
I think we need to have more discussion on this issue before we
launch into a PDP with such a broad scope and unclear objective.
I'd like to better understand what the "problem" is and why the
proscribed recommendation is the right approach to take.
The argument that' treaties take a long time and are difficult' isn't
very convincing for why ICANN should try to circumvent legitimate
legal processes.
It seems that we haven't had enough information or discussion on this
issue to rush into any pre-determined outcome yet. Where is the fire?
Thanks,
Robin
On Dec 17, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
> Thanks Avri. Thanks also to Olof for the redline document of Nov. 30,
> showing differences between the proposed DRP and the existing UDRP.
>
> I am not convinced that we need a PDP scoped so broadly, with a
> Task Force,
> and would prefer to limit the scope up front. I would much prefer
> to frame
> this PDP as proposed, limited amendments to the UDRP, to address IGO
> concerns -- rather than an entire new policy for such a small set
> of names.
> I think it would be far less controversial and easier to implement
> if we
> produce a set of amendments which can meet the concerns of IGOs,
> rather than
> an entirely new policy for IGO names. I also think it is much more
> important to devote substantial time to amending the URDP to make
> it more
> effective for ALL rights owners, asap in the New Year, than to
> focus so much
> effort on the concerns of relatively few IGOs.
>
> So, I would prefer to see Staff provide another document similar to
> Olof's
> redline, but showing recommended amendments to the existing UDRP,
> rather
> than a whole new policy. And then we should proceed with a more
> limited
> PDP. Accordingly, I propose a different motion re IGO DRP, as
> follows:
>
> Whereas:
>
> - The Issues Report for IGO
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-
> drp-15jun07.pdf)
> has been released and discussed
>
> - and in response to a GNSO Council resolution the ICANN Staff has
> produced
> a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure
> (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-
> v2-28sep07.pdf)
>
> - and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on
> commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a
> proposal for a
> revised IGO DRP
> (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf)
>
> Resolves:
>
> - The GNSO initiates a PDP to discuss amendments to the UDRP which
> would
> enable IGOs to pursue domain names referring to IGO names via the
> UDRP and,
> in the event of an unfavorable decision by a UDRP panel, to
> challenge that
> decision via a new appeal process to be added to the UDRP and which
> shall be
> limited to disputes regarding IGO names.
>
> - As initial material for the PDP, the following will be used:
> - the Issues report prepared by the staff
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-
> drp-15jun07.pdf
> - the DRP proposal prepared by the staff
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
> - the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf
> - a new document to be prepared by Staff no later than January
> 12, 2008,
> showing proposed amendments to the UDRP based upon the IPC's Nov.
> 28th
> proposal, rather than an entirely new DRP proposal
>
> - Staff will request Constituency representatives by January 12,
> 2008, who
> shall meet and confer in order to recommend to Council, no later than
> January 26, 2008, whether or not a Task Force is needed for this PDP.
>
> At that point, Council can decide to accept that recommendation, or
> not, but
> the PDP would continue down one of the two paths in the Bylaws
> (Task Force,
> or Constituency Impact Statements).
>
> Also I am not clear about the proposed appeal process for IGOs,
> which I
> thought was the fundamental reason they wanted changes to the
> UDRP. Seems
> there would need to be a further arbitration agreement added to the
> Registration Agreement, that binds registrants to a further
> arbitration in
> the event of an IGO disputing a UDRP decision. The IPC's revised
> proposal
> says that any 'arbitral tribunal' with appropriate jurisdiction can
> hear an
> IGO's appeal, but isn't the only/best way for an arbitral tribunal
> to get
> jurisdiction over a registrant via the Registration Agreement? And
> doesn't
> that raise other questions about what arbitration providers and
> processes
> should be named in the contract?
>
> I am also curious why we are not considering a different approach
> to help
> out IGOs, much like ICANN protects itself and related organizations
> via the
> Reserved Names list. It seems rather easy for ICANN to add the Paris
> Convention 6ter list as Reserved Names in newTLDs. Of course that
> doesn't
> help IGOs with their concerns re existing TLDs, and so we still may
> need
> UDRP modifications, but seems to me at least worth consideration.
> Generally
> I do not see why IGO names should be treated differently than ICANN-
> related
> names, so perhaps we should also take ICANN-related names off the
> Reserved
> Names list, and make them subject to the new IGO-amended UDRP.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We have the vote on creating a PDP on the IGO DRP n the agnda for this
> week's meeting. the following are the proposed motions on this
> subject. they can be found in the motins page of docs.google.com).
>
> thanks
> a.
>
>
> -- Motion 1 on IGO-DRP:
>
> Whereas:
>
> - The Issues report for IGO
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-
> drp-15jun07.pdf
> ) has been released and discussed
>
> - and in response to a council resolution the staff has produced a
> proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure
> (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-
> v2-28sep07.pdf)
>
> - and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote
> on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a
> proposal for a revised IGO DRP
> (insert pointer)
>
> Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation on a PDP
> on IGO dispute Resolution Procedures
>
>
> -- Motion 2 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of Motion 1 on
> IGO-DRP
>
> Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on IGO-Dispute
> Resolution mechanism, a Task Force will be created according to the
> By-
> laws, section 5 of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process. As
> initial material for the PDP, the following will be used:
> - the Issues report prepared by the staff
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-
> drp-15jun07.pdf
> - the DRP proposal prepared by the staff
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
> - the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf
>
>
> -- Motion 3 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of Motion 1 on IGO-
> DRP
>
> Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on IGO-Dispute
> Resolution mechanism, and whereas the holiday season is rapidly
> approaching, the schedule will be shifted out 2 weeks indicating that
> the requisite deadline for appointment of constituency representatives
> will be delayed until Jan 12 2008.
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071218/d623f3b5/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list