[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)

Fri Jul 24 02:03:36 UTC 2015

Thanks Mary. As always, this is quite helpful.

I believe that what some WG members are asking is whether the call that Petter and I will be, consistent with ICANN's commitment to transparency in the policy development process, on shall be recorded or transcribed; I don't believe there was an expectation that last week's meeting in Paris hosted by OECD had been so.

So that's what we need staff to check on. If there is a compelling argument for not doing so then the fallback is to Petter and I with staff assistance to provide a comprehensive report to the WG -- the other parties should understand that Petter and I would be participating in the call as the chosen representatives of this WG and have an obligation to share the discussion with its members.

As for this part of your email ---

                As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is

                expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO

                acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent

                discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line

                with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be

                forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in

                the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of

                possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning

                the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this

                WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its

                work in developing its consensus recommendations.

--As you noted elsewhere in your message, the "focus" of the NGPC is the NEW gTLD program (that is what the N stands for) and, so far as I am aware, they have no authority to address legacy gTLD matters. Further, as regards legacy gTLDs, I know of nothing in the Bylaws that legitimizes a policy proposal assembled by the Board, GAC and staff being forwarded for GNSO consideration. The matter of CRP for IGO acronyms at gTLDs (and most certainly legacy gTLDs) is quite clearly a policy matter,  or else the Council resolution establishing this WG is illegitimate.

Please understand that I am not prejudging the discussion on the call that Petter and I have not yet had; and also please know that your service to this WG has been exemplary and that none of this reply is directed at you personally. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of two competing proposals being issued as regards second level CRP for IGO acronyms, one from a group populated by IGOs that have refrained from meaningfully engaging with a WG that is dedicated to protecting the full scope of their lawful rights, and another from this very WG which is based upon consensus agreement on relevant legal and policy facts and resulting considerations.  The Council should never be placed in the position of having to choose between two competing proposals, and I know of nothing in the Bylaws that condones such a situation.

Best regards,

Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:22 PM
To: George Kirikos; Phil Corwin
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)

Hello again everyone,

As the ³small group² isn¹t a GNSO Working Group or Cross-Community Working

Group, the meeting was not recorded or transcribed in the same way as we

would do for GNSO WG/CWGs. I expect that the status of the proposal will

be one of the major items to be discussed on the call between Phil,

Petter, Mason, Chris Disspain and Thomas Schneider. Staff is trying to

confirm some possible dates for the call, and I hope we will be able to

find mutually agreeable times in short order. We will of course be happy

to work with Phil, Petter and Mason to put together a report for this WG

following the call.

It may be worth noting that the IGOs, NGPC and GAC do not intend the

updated proposal to be a directive to the GNSO, as they have each

expressly acknowledged the role of the GNSO in developing gTLD policy.

This was in fact a topic of discussion among the GNSO Council, the GAC and

the Board some time ago. Additionally, the NGPC¹s original proposal - and

the NGPC-GAC dialogue - pre-dated the formation of our WG and deals with

broader issues than the scope of our Charter (i.e. issues concerning

Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and claims notice protections for IGO

acronyms). There are also other differences between the focus of the

NGPC-GAC discussions being conducted through the ³small group² and the two

GNSO PDPs (including this one), primarily, the focus of the former on the

New gTLD Program whereas the scope of the GNSO work covers both legacy and

new gTLDs. This point was specifically noted during the GNSO Council¹s

discussion with Chris Disspain over extending TMCH and claims notice

protection for IGO acronyms last September.

As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is

expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO

acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent

discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line

with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be

forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in

the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of

possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning

the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this

WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its

work in developing its consensus recommendations.

I apologize if some of these points have been made previously, but I

thought it helpful to refer to them again here, especially for those WG

members who may not have followed the history of the topic of IGO

protections closely. As mentioned in another email, staff is also

continuing to contact those experts whose names have been put forward, to

find out their availability, interest and rates. Our thanks go to those WG

members, especially Jim Bikoff, who have been very helpful in this regards.

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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

-----Original Message-----

From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of George Kirikos

<icann at leap.com<mailto:icann at leap.com>>

Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 18:58

To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>

Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message

from Petter and Phil)

>They should make a transcript, too, just like our normal conference

>calls. It's much easier/faster to review and reference a written

>transcript.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>George Kirikos

>416-588-0269

>http://www.leap.com/

>

>

>On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:

>> Mary/Steve:

>>

>>

>>

>> Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible?

>>

>>

>>

>> Thanks, Philip

>>

>>

>>

>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

>>

>> Virtualaw LLC

>>

>> 1155 F Street, NW

>>

>> Suite 1050

>>

>> Washington, DC 20004

>>

>> 202-559-8597/Direct

>>

>> 202-559-8750/Fax

>>

>> 202-255-6172/cell

>>

>>

>>

>> Twitter: @VlawDC

>>

>>

>>

>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

>>

>>

>>

>> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>

>> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul

>>Tattersfield

>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM

>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.

>>

>>

>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message

>> from Petter and Phil)

>>

>>

>>

>> Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting?

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>

>> wrote:

>>

>> Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.

>>

>> OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue

>>relating

>> to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is

>>suspect

>> on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.

>>

>> The Board should learn that its out of process policy development

>> machinations are not acceptable.

>>

>> Mike Rodenbaugh

>> RODENBAUGH LAW

>> tel/fax +1.415.738.8087

>> http://rodenbaugh.com

>>

>> On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:

>>

>> Mike:

>>

>>

>>

>> As I previously replied to Paul, I don¹t know if Petter and I can have

>>other

>> WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group

>>and

>> that will encourage a full and frank discussion.

>>

>>

>>

>> But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as

>>well

>> as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as

>> soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting

>> shortly thereafter.

>>

>>

>>

>> Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning¹s

>>monthly

>> GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the

>> concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this

>>WG was

>> stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that

>>any

>> ³comprehensive solution² on IGO protections proposed to be put together

>>by

>> the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level

>> issueraised serious process/policy development issues.

>>

>>

>>

>> Let¹s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the

>>next

>> week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If

>>circumstances

>> dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the

>>sovereign

>> immunity scope question.

>>

>>

>>

>> Finally, in advance of the call  and we are awaiting word on when that

>>will

>> take place  it might be useful if WG members came together on a few

>>points

>> that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that

>>discussion.

>>

>>

>>

>> Best regards,

>>

>> Philip

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

>>

>> Virtualaw LLC

>>

>> 1155 F Street, NW

>>

>> Suite 1050

>>

>> Washington, DC 20004

>>

>> 202-559-8597/Direct

>>

>> 202-559-8750/Fax

>>

>> 202-255-6172/cell

>>

>>

>>

>> Twitter: @VlawDC

>>

>>

>>

>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

>>

>>

>>

>> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]

>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM

>> To: Paul at law.es<mailto:Paul at law.es> ZIMBRA

>> Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>);

>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message

>> from Petter and Phil)

>>

>>

>>

>> Me too, thanks.

>>

>>

>> Mike Rodenbaugh

>>

>> RODENBAUGH LAW

>>

>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

>>

>> http://rodenbaugh.com

>>

>>

>>

>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul at law.es<mailto:Paul at law.es> ZIMBRA <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>> wrote:

>>

>> Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or

>>otherwise

>> participate to the extent you feel appropriate.

>>

>> Paul Keating

>>

>>

>> On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:

>>

>> [Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip

>>Corwin, WG

>> co-chairs]

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear WG members,

>>

>>

>>

>> Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have

>>decided

>> to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this

>> Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the

>> ³small group² meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and

>>ICANN

>> Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is

>>likely to

>> be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by

>> September. This is in line with the GAC¹s Buenos Aires Communique and

>>the

>> objectives of the ³small group² process when it was formed to discuss

>>the

>> initial March 2014 proposal from the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee

>> (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend

>>beyond

>> but are related to our work.

>>

>>

>>

>> With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development

>> process, and to take into account the context of our work, which

>>includes

>> the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO¹s

>> initial policy recommendations on so-called ³preventative² protections

>>and

>> GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon,

>>along

>> with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the

>> original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison,

>> with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair)

>> within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a

>> first-hand update on the work of the ³small group² and discuss the

>>likely

>> progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO

>> protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture.  As

>>such,

>> we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to

>>have

>> our next WG meeting following this call.

>>

>>

>>

>> We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call

>>as

>> soon as possible.

>>

>>

>>

>> Best regards,

>>

>> Petter and Phil

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

>>

>>

>>

>> ________________________________

>>

>> No virus found in this message.

>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

>> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date:

>>07/18/15

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

>>

>>

>>

>> ________________________________

>>

>> No virus found in this message.

>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

>> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date:

>>07/18/15

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150724/d339b62e/attachment-0001.html>