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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

How about replace:

> 2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter
> appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report, which was delivered to
> the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014.
> 


with


2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter <file
name here>.  This is based on the charter that was appended as Annex 3
to the Final Issues Report which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25
May 2014.

avri






On 05-Jun-14 17:35, Marika Konings wrote:
> Could someone confirm the exact language that needs to be added so
> that we can update the motion accordingly?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 05/06/14 16:29, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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>
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>