[council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jun 24 15:02:54 UTC 2014


The details of the additional protections to be 
put out for public comment does not correspond to 
my understanding of what is in the NGPC letter. 
If this has already been discussed and resolved 
at a meeting I missed, I apologize, but I wanted 
to put these comments on the record if they are indeed applicable.

My understanding of what is to be discussed is:

For the IGO acronyms, that additional protection 
suggested by the NGPC is that for the period 
starting at 90 days and for the life of the TMCH, 
any registrations of the "protected" acronyms, a 
notice be sent to the IGO. It does NOT request 
that for this extended period, a claims notice be 
sent to the pro[psective registrant (from the 
letter "the IGO would receive a notification of 
the registration from the TMCH for the life of the TMCH").

For the RC National names, my understanding is 
that what is being suggested is full protection 
(ie placed on the reserved list or equivalent), 
with the exception of the organization mentioned 
having the ability to register the name (from the 
letter, "permanently protected from unauthorized use").

Lastly, I believe that the revised PC time line 
requires a minimum 40 day comment now, so the 
overall timelines need to factor that in.

Alan


At 23/06/2014 11:58 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>All,
>1. Following up to the discussion we had on this 
>subject, please find attached: (1) a draft 
>motion setting out the background (in the 
>Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council 
>will take in relation to possibly modifying the 
>GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO 
>acronym identifier protections in response to 
>the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a document 
>containing the actual proposed modification for 
>the Council to discuss forwarding on to the 
>reconvened WG and including some background 
>information such as the actual original WG 
>recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a 
>comparison table showing the original WG 
>recommendations and the proposed modifications side by side.
>
>This is to inform your discussion with your 
>respective groups in preparation for the public 
>meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will 
>not be voted on till the first meeting following 
>this London gathering, but we thought it might 
>be useful for the Council to have all the 
>necessary documentation at the first possible opportunity.
>
>Please note also that we have not run the final 
>versions of the recommended proposal by our 
>legal colleagues as in the interests of time we 
>thought it important for you to be able to review these early!
>
>Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for 
>turning this around at such short notice and 
>prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
>
>2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think 
>was an excellent meeting), there was only little 
>time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a 
>few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I 
>was wondering whether the current status and the 
>suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In 
>particular, I am afraid that there is the 
>misconception that a full PDP might be required 
>for changes to the recommendations. I would 
>therefore suggest we send a small briefing note 
>to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be 
>that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué.
>
>***
>Dear Heather,
>following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, 
>we would like to briefly outline both the 
>current status as well as the next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question.
>
>1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the 
>NGPC with a letter of June 16th, 2014 suggesting 
>that indefinite claims service to provide notice 
>to the organization in question is offered for 
>the designations in question whenever such 
>designation has been registered. Currently, the 
>GNSO policy recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service.
>
>The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on 
>this subject during the public meeting on 
>Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, 
>the course of action would be to reconvene the 
>PDP WG to consider this very question and get 
>back to the GNSO Council. We would like to 
>stress that this consultation process would 
>presumably take a short period of time. The 
>GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP.
>
>2. The second suggestion is to modify certain 
>aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs and 
>the development of rules and procedures for an 
>arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse 
>of IGO names and acronyms. We note that this 
>work is already under way with the PDP that has 
>been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last 
>meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is 
>required with respect to potential modifications 
>of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the 
>aspect of working on potential modifications of 
>curative rights protection mechanisms was 
>already included in the set of recommendations 
>the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. 
>While the work on the PDP is conducted, the 
>temporary protections remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed.
>
>We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters.
>Yours sincerely,
>
>***
>
>Any thoughts or suggestions?
>
>Best,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
>Director Names & Numbers
>
>-------------------------------------
>eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>
>Lichtstraße 43h
>50825 Köln
>
>Fon:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0
>Fax:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111
>E-Mail: thomas.rickert at eco.de
>Web:    http://www.eco.de
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa
>Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv.
>Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger
>Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478
>Sitz des Vereins: Köln
>
>
>
>
>All,
>1. Following up to the discussion we had on this 
>subject, please find attached: (1) a draft 
>motion setting out the background (in the 
>Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council 
>will take in relation to possibly modifying the 
>GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO 
>acronym identifier protections in response to 
>the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a document 
>containing the actual proposed modification for 
>the Council to discuss forwarding on to the 
>reconvened WG and including some background 
>information such as the actual original WG 
>recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a 
>comparison table showing the original WG 
>recommendations and the proposed modifications side by side.
>
>This is to inform your discussion with your 
>respective groups in preparation for the public 
>meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will 
>not be voted on till the first meeting following 
>this London gathering, but we thought it might 
>be useful for the Council to have all the 
>necessary documentation at the first possible opportunity.
>
>Please note also that we have not run the final 
>versions of the recommended proposal by our 
>legal colleagues as in the interests of time we 
>thought it important for you to be able to review these early!
>
>Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for 
>turning this around at such short notice and 
>prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much!
>
>2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think 
>was an excellent meeting), there was only little 
>time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a 
>few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I 
>was wondering whether the current status and the 
>suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In 
>particular, I am afraid that there is the 
>misconception that a full PDP might be required 
>for changes to the recommendations. I would 
>therefore suggest we send a small briefing note 
>to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be 
>that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué.
>
>***
>Dear Heather,
>following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, 
>we would like to briefly outline both the 
>current status as well as the next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question.
>
>1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the 
>NGPC with a letter of June 16th, 2014 suggesting 
>that indefinite claims service to provide notice 
>to the organization in question is offered for 
>the designations in question whenever such 
>designation has been registered. Currently, the 
>GNSO policy recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service.
>
>The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on 
>this subject during the public meeting on 
>Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, 
>the course of action would be to reconvene the 
>PDP WG to consider this very question and get 
>back to the GNSO Council. We would like to 
>stress that this consultation process would 
>presumably take a short period of time. The 
>GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP.
>
>2. The second suggestion is to modify certain 
>aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs and 
>the development of rules and procedures for an 
>arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse 
>of IGO names and acronyms. We note that this 
>work is already under way with the PDP that has 
>been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last 
>meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is 
>required with respect to potential modifications 
>of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the 
>aspect of working on potential modifications of 
>curative rights protection mechanisms was 
>already included in the set of recommendations 
>the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. 
>While the work on the PDP is conducted, the 
>temporary protections remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed.
>
>We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>***
>
>Any thoughts or suggestions?
>
>Best,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
>Director Names & Numbers
>
>-------------------------------------
>eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>
>Lichtstraße 43h
>50825 Köln
>
>Fon:   +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0
>Fax:   +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111
>E-Mail: <mailto:thomas.rickert at eco.de>thomas.rickert at eco.de
>Web:    <http://www.eco.de>http://www.eco.de
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa
>Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv.
>Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger
>Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478
>Sitz des Vereins: Köln
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140624/bd160637/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list