[council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)

Wed Dec 12 18:05:01 UTC 2012

I agree with Volker:

>> It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes. 

--Wendy

On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Thank-you Volker,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated.
> 
>  
> 
> Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point.  Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Others, please chime in.  Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
> Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review  of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions. 
> 
> It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes. 
> 
> If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week.  I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
> 
>  
> 
> Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
> 
>  
> 
> Noting:
> 
>  
> 
> “I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations” 
> 
>  
> 
> And 
> 
>  
> 
> “… a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2)”
> 
>  
> 
> Thank-you.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade at icann.org] 
> Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive
> Subject: TMCH
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
>  
> 
> As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/), the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of a strawman model  to address some of the proposed improvements requested by the BC/IPC.   I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in these discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs.
> 
>  
> 
> I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations.   Each of these documents are posted for public comment (see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm) to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals.  Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any aspect of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is interested in broadening its response.  The specific proposal is that:
> 
>  
> 
> Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse).  Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights holder. 
> 
>  
> 
> Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited preventative registrations.  In general, there was not support among non-IPC/BC participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive registrations among the participants in the TMCH meetings.   After hearing concerns regarding this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description of a preventative mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which has also been published for public comment.    As this issue is relevant to a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am seeking GNSO Council feedback on this IPC/BC proposal as well.
> 
>  
> 
> It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its December meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting always clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming.  One of my goals as CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles difficult issues.   I truly believe that the development of strawman proposals on this and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and implementation discussions.   I hope that you will consider this request in that light.
> 
>  
> 
> We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best Personal Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Fadi Chehade
> 
> President and CEO
> 
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/