[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections

Wed Jul 22 20:26:13 UTC 2015

As previously discussed:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-July/000382.html

GAC advice shouldn't be given any deference, given it is essentially
political in nature, and not built on a foundation of a careful
analysis of facts and law, as the Independent Review panel decided.
Some folks appear to be ignoring that decision, and are simply
repeating the mistakes of the past, instead of reforming their
processes.

As for the statement regarding reconciling the NGPC (new gTLD program
committee) proposal with the GAC advice, this seems immaterial to our
work, which would decide a consensus policy for *all* gTLDs (not just
new gTLDs). It seems to me that this is just an attempt to hijack our
work. Some folks would be happy to see our hard work go to waste, and
force through a policy for new gTLDs, which would then be applied to
"legacy" gTLDs like .com/net/org.

Indeed, as we saw with .travel, .pro and .cat w.r.t. to the URS, some
ICANN staff have been trying to use contract "negotiations" to
implement "policies" through registry contracts, instead of going
through the proper GNSO policy development processes that protect all
stakeholders (particularly registrants, who are not at the negotiating
table when ICANN staff and registry operators are devising their
agreements which directly impact their rights).

On another note, all of these "concerns" from IGOs were based on an
assumption back in 2014 that new gTLDs would be in high demand, and
therefore there'd be a huge risk that others would tarnish their
brands via cybersquatting.  However, we now know those assumptions
were wrong. We have the actual data, and don't need to rely on faulty
projections. ICANN itself had estimated in 2014 there would be 33
million new gTLD domains registered. We know now that there are
approximately 6 million. Indeed, since many of those were free
giveaways, and defensive registrations, the "real" number might be
more like 2 million:

http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile
https://ntldstats.com/registrar/146-GoDaddycom-LLC

(I arrive at 2 million, by basically doubling GoDaddy's numbers, which
are more "legitimate" than most other sources, and given that they
have a 40 to 50% share of new domain registration volume for legacy
gTLDs like com/net/org)

So, with IGOs "risks" lower by between 80% and 95% (depending on which
numbers one uses), I really wonder why IGOs are still pressing this
issue. If they have facts and data that we don't have, they should be
sharing them with us, in order to be able to quantify costs and
benefits..

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Regarding the appointment of an external legal expert - staff has been
> working to identify a number of qualified legal experts who may be
> available to provide this WG with the advice it seeks. During the past few
> weeks, we have contacted the ones who have through various sources been
> recommended to us, including by members of this WG, and updated the draft
> questions in line with the last WG email thread on the topic. Our plan is
> to develop a short list of interested experts who may be able to provide
> you with the input sought, following initial conversations with the ones
> we have tried to contact.
>
> Regarding the work of the ³small group² - as mentioned previously, the
> ³small group² was formed to serve as the primary forum for Board-GAC
> discussions on the issue of IGO protections. This took place during the
> ongoing NGPC-GAC discussions over the NGPC¹s March 2014 proposal. The NGPC
> proposal had been expressly requested by the Board, in a Board resolution
> in February 2014 that had also acknowledged the GNSO¹s policy
> recommendations from the initial (2012-13) PDP and asked for more time to
> consider them. Although the Board subsequently adopted some of the GNSO¹s
> policy recommendations in April 2014, these did not include those that
> were inconsistent with GAC advice on the topic of IGO protections. The
> ³small group² has therefore been working to further refine the NGPC
> proposal in order for the GAC and the GNSO to be in a position to resolve
> those inconsistencies. The GNSO has been aware of the NGPC proposal, the
> ongoing discussions, and the existence of the ³small group² for some time
> (see, e.g., the discussions between the GNSO Council and Chris Disspain,
> and the correspondence between the GNSO Chair and the NGPC, between mid-
> to late 2014).
>
> Do note that the letter specifically mentions that the updated proposal
> will be sent to the GNSO. There is also to be a meeting between the
> relevant GNSO representatives (including our WG co-chairs), the GAC Chair
> and Chris Disspain from the NGPC on this matter. Further, previous GAC
> Commmuniques and communications from the NGPC had expressly acknowledged
> the scope of work of this PDP WG, which is of course relevant to the
> outcome of the overall discussion on IGO protections.
>
> I believe I¹ve previously sent around links to the relevant Board
> resolutions, GAC Communiques and GNSO Council discussions on this topic so
> I am not including them in this note, but do let me know if anyone would
> like me to resend them.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating
> <paul at law.es>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 15:09
> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections
>
>>Mary, Phil and Petter.
>>
>>It seems to me test there are now a number of "groups" acting under the
>>assumption that  they have been tasked with the authority to determine
>>this issue and to provide "solutions". I am not clear if this letter is
>>from the same or from a different group than the "small group" (whatever
>>that is in reality).
>>
>>Can you please let us know whether this letter is written by a group
>>acting under the ambit of authority?
>>
>>Finally I am growing quite perturbed by the apparent lack of legal
>>support for the WG. We have, following advice from
>>Staff, provided a narrow request for funds to obtain a qualified legal
>>opinion. However, I have not seen any apparent progress on a request for
>>funding or any authorization to retain counsel on this important issue.
>>
>>We are approaching a point where conspiratorially minded persons might
>>think the failure to authorize competent legal advisors is an effort to
>>eliminate the legal basis for what is seemingly forming as a consensus in
>>favor of a political approach which is not founded upon legal principals.
>> I for one surely hope this is not the case.
>>
>>I therefore reiterated my requests that :
>>
>>1. The authorization be obtained for a competent qualified legal advisor
>>to assist the WG regarding immunity issues ( a copy
>>Of the actual funding request must be circulated to the WG): and,
>>
>>2. Disclosure of the members of the now multiple groups apparently
>>"working" on the same task assigned to this WG - namely the "small
>>working group" and this who worked in the preparation of the letter
>>referenced below.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Paul Keating, Esq.
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:54 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would this letter have any meaning whatsoever? This PDP is
>>> supposed to be based on data, research, law, etc. The IGOs appear to
>>> be planning to just put out a position statement or proposal, without
>>> any data, research, law, etc., as just a means of circumventing the
>>> formal process (this very PDP) that ICANN has put in place to make
>>> sure that all stakeholders are represented.
>>>
>>> They even made the questionable statement that this issue is "becoming
>>> increasingly critical as time goes by" -- where's the data/evidence to
>>> substantiate that assertion? IGOs have been treated just like
>>> everybody else for the past 30 years, and the UDRP has existed for
>>> more than 15 years, and the world hasn't come to an end.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear WG members,
>>>>
>>>> We would like to draw your attention to the following letter that was
>>>>just
>>>> sent by the OECD Secretary-General to ICANN¹s CEO Fadi Chehade:
>>>>
>>>>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-2
>>>>0jul15-en.pdf.
>>>> You will see that the letter references the recent Paris meeting that
>>>>Phil
>>>> and Petter are expecting to follow up on with the NGPC, GAC Chair and
>>>>other
>>>> GNSO representatives. In light of the GAC¹s recent Buenos Aires
>>>>Communique
>>>> that noted Dublin as a key milestone for resolving the overall issue
>>>>of IGO
>>>> protections, we thought you might find this letter of interest.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>> Mary Wong
>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp