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

Thomas Rickert rickert at anwaelte.de
Thu Jun 5 15:47:57 UTC 2014 

Hi James,
it is correct that the Board is still considering some of the recommendations. 

However, the Council has accepted a recommendation that we should initiate a PDP on this topic. I think we should now implement what we have resolved earlier on. While I am all for efficiency, I think that our work should be independent from potential Board action at this stage so that the Council is seen to be translating its resolution into action in a timely fashion.

I hope you agree with this.

Thanks,
Thomas 




Am 05.06.2014 um 17:00 schrieb James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>:

> 
> Building on this discussion, I have a more basic question:
> 
> Does it make sense to proceed with this Issues Report/PDP in light of the
> outstanding work to be done w.r.t the GAC and acronyms?  Are we assuming
> that the outcome of those talks (which, if I’m not mistaken, haven’t
> occurred yet) could be another Issues Report/PDP, that is interdependent
> with this one?
> 
> We are seeing interdependencies crop up in the IRTP series of PDPs (A-D),
> and from that experience, I prefer waiting until all issues & questions
> are contained in a single PDP charter, rather than break them up.
> 
> Apologies if I’m missing something here...
> 
> Thanks―
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/5/14, 7:31 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
> 
>> 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/20140605/8d183656/signature.asc>

More information about the council mailing list