GNSO Council Transcript

GNSO PRO Wg meetin

25 March 2007

"Protecting the Rights of Others" Working Group (PRO-wg)

Lisbon meeting notes

25 March 2007

Participants:

Working group members:

Kristina Rosette - IPC Working group chair Ute Decker - IPC Eun-Joo

Min, WIPO John Berryhill - Registrar Mike Rodenbaugh - CBUC Mike

Palage - Registry c.

David Maher - Registry c.

Jon Bing - Nom Com

Invited guest to present:

Bart Lieben PWC, validation agent for the .eu launch

presentation:

http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/icann-presentation-bart-lieben.pdf

Observers:

Tricia Drakes, observer

Alan Greenberg ALAC observer

Colin Adams, global strategy group

Matt Selin, MarkMonitor (mm)

Bill Jacobs, mm

Chris Bounds, mm

Steve Delbianco CBUC

Staff:

Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer

Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

(These are very rough notes but are a record of the meeting )

*Issue to ask Dan Halloran about*; do the survey responses remain anonymous?

*To do*

- Mike Rodenbaugh. to flesh out questions and circulate them to the group.

- Group to review this week and distribute next week.

- People to ask constituencies if there are any specific questions they’d like answered, or if there are types of data they want.

Constituency input on draft survey by the end of the week.

Kristina – as discussed on last call, seeking informal comments from constituencies and their members on their experiences, issues identified and their preferences, future mechanisms, what form they’d take participation requirements. I put together rough draft of questions. We’ll get broader and useful participation for the report if we have a survey with yes/no questions, ranks, etc. first thing to identify is what each person or entity that does a survey, what their capacity has been in terms of these processes. Are they owner of rights, idnvidiual or commercial users. You’ll have overlaps, registrars are registrants, but to give a base overview of where the comments are coming from. Can anyone keep a running document as we talk?

Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered.

Kristina – how should we elaborate the categories?

Mike Rodenbaugh – rightsholders. we can have an ‘other’ category.

Kristina– yes, but concern about how likely that issues in those groups will diverge.

Margie Milam - the registrars’ perspective will be different from registries. Also government agencies.

Mike Palage – IPC may pursue issues more zealously than BC, e.g. attorneys may diverge somewhat from rights owners they represent.

*Agreed: *List of categories agreed:

Rights owners

Representatives of rights owners

Registrars

Registries

Registrants

Civil society

Government

Other

Dispute resolution providers

Kristina: – next option is to ask what mechanisms the participant has participated in, broadly. E.g. sunrise, ip claim,

Mike palage: – or ‘what tld process have you participated in?’

*Agreed:* Mike – 2 questions: what TLD procedures have you participated in, and also what PRO processes have you participated in?

Kristina:– then, proceed with the survey on a general process basis, the way to go through the survey will depend. So if you were in a sunrise process, then which ones, characterise your participation role (e.g. claimant, defendant). Or do it on a TLd basis?

Mike R – you can do it on the basis of ‘which TLD were you involved in’.

Kristina:– same series of questions, but tailored to each TLD.

Mike Rodenbaugh – what tlds were you engaged in, and for each tld, which processes were you involved in.

Kristina:– I want to drill down in the processes to which capacity were you involved in the process as. As a defendant might have a different experience.

Kristina: ‘if you initiated a claim, what was the outcome, what was the basis for your challenge?’ these could raise areas where mechanisms could be revised.

Tricia Drake – sunrise processes and rights that need to be protected. Just narrow rights? With new tlds there’s a broader audience that need to be aware of the rights they have that need to be protected.

Mike Rodenbaugh – that’s part of the broader new gtld policy about getting the message out about the new rounds.

Kristina – our work is about should the new contract have a standard form for rights protection and if so what should it look like?

? – are we looking only at 2nd level domains? The language in the new gtld report talks about strings not infringing rights of others.

Kristina – it’s my understanding it’s only 2^nd level.

Mike r – that language is a place holder. We’re looking at protecting rights holders’ rights at the 2^nd level.

Tricia Drakes – that needs to be made clear.

Mike r – the broader task force is looking at contention at the top level.

Kristina: – we can say here are our recommendations for the 2^nd level and that these recommendations may be useful at the top level.

Tricia – Drakes it needs to be clear as there are people at this table who disagree on whether it’s about the top or 2^nd level. One of the outputs of this group could be ‘who’s covering this in the top level?’.

UTE – can we get a report from Liz on what the task force as a whole is covering, otherwise, as regards 1^st and 2^nd level?

Mike r – that’s what the final task force report does.

Mike Palage – right now in the new gtld allocation part of the report, there is no mention of sunrises. So if an affirmative right is not at the top, does that necessarily scale down to the second. Why are you treating an allocation differently at the second level? There have been dispute resolution processes suggested in the past, but not an automatic sunrise. The fact that it’s not been suggested is something we could take note of.

Mike r – it’s addressed in the price of 100k for a new gtld, but you’ll see contention at the 2^nd level. I don’t think we should spend time discussing top level issues in this group. We should clarify that we’re only dealing with 2^nd level issues and move on.

Kristina:– mike Palage, if you want to write the para on why we focused on the 2^nd level, you can. We will write an introductory para on what our understanding of our task was, what our scope was.

Mike r – we were at ‘identify the challenges involved in each process.’

Mike Palage – another question: is the proposed ip protection mechanism subject to gaming and speculation by ? seeking to gain advantage over another rights holder? And mark it ‘strong, not strong’.

Mke r – that’s a subjective question.

Kristina:– after we get the quantitiative data, we need to get that data.

Mike Palage – after ‘did you win or lose’. You may see those who won think there was no gaming. It’s important to ask winners and losers the same question so we can compare.

Mike r- and ask about general impressions of the process, but keep it quantitive.

Kristina:– and we need q on defensive registrations; ‘if you are a registrant, do you have defensive registrations’.

? – how do you define a defensive registration?

Kristina: – registration of a name for the primary purpose of preventing a third party from obtaining it.

– question on how much time spent on doing protective registrations.

Mike Palage– minimise the time taken to complete the survey – high, medium low on the time spent.