[Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps

[Kim G. von Arx]

Hi Bill: 

I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders.  This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.  

I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general.  I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough. 

In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups.  I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views. 

Kim 


On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:

> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
> 
> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
> 
> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx
>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM
>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
>> 
>> Hi Wilfried:
>> 
>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners,
>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to,
>> e.g., copyright.
>> 
>> Kim
>> 
>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Kim, Team!
>>> 
>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Emily et al:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment?  Would any member of the
>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this?  Or should we
>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
>>> 
>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic
>> would
>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the
>> Sunday
>>> get-together.
>>> 
>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or
>> documents.
>>> 
>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have
>> started most of the work already.  My thinking is that our face to face
>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke
>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as
>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus.  I would
>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder
>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table.  With respect to
>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face
>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the
>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for
>> the remaining 1.5 days.
>>> 
>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
>>> 
>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this.  I'd like to propose
>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our
>> mandate
>>>>> 
>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our
>> face to face time as much as possible.
>>> 
>>> OK for me.
>>> 
>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to:
>>>>> 	- the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees
>>>>> 	- the Board
>>>>> 	- any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the
>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them
>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our
>> task.   Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by
>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings
>> and help lead the discussions?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> agreed
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our next call
>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective
>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> agreed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>> 
>>> Wilfried
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois