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

Thomas Rickert rickert at anwaelte.de
Thu Jun 5 14:31:10 UTC 2014 

Jonathan,
I do not object!

Thomas


Am 05.06.2014 um 16:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:

> 
> Good points Avri.
> 
> I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
> 
> If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
> Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
> 
> 
> 
> 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>
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140605/693f5aaf/signature.asc>

More information about the council mailing list