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

[Avri Doria]

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>
>>>>
>>
>