AW: [council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

I concure with Robin. ICANN is no fast track to avoid regular legal and
treaty process out of  convinience. Thought the UDRP sets a contradicting
precedence I do not believe that it is in the scope of ICANN to be involved
into the game of what belongs to whom and how such disputes can be settled.
 
Best,
 
tom

  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Robin Gross
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 02:40
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP


I think we need to have more discussion on this issue before we launch into
a PDP with such a broad scope and unclear objective. I'd like to better
understand what the "problem" is and why the proscribed recommendation is
the right approach to take. 

The argument that' treaties take a long time and are difficult' isn't very
convincing for why ICANN should try to circumvent legitimate legal
processes. 


It seems that we haven't had enough information or discussion on this issue
to rush into any pre-determined outcome yet. Where is the fire?

Thanks,
Robin



On Dec 17, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:



Thanks Avri. Thanks also to Olof for the redline document of Nov. 30,
showing differences between the proposed DRP and the existing UDRP. 

I am not convinced that we need a PDP scoped so broadly, with a Task Force,
and would prefer to limit the scope up front. I would much prefer to frame
this PDP as proposed, limited amendments to the UDRP, to address IGO
concerns -- rather than an entire new policy for such a small set of names.
I think it would be far less controversial and easier to implement if we
produce a set of amendments which can meet the concerns of IGOs, rather than
an entirely new policy for IGO names. I also think it is much more
important to devote substantial time to amending the URDP to make it more
effective for ALL rights owners, asap in the New Year, than to focus so much
effort on the concerns of relatively few IGOs.

So, I would prefer to see Staff provide another document similar to Olof's
redline, but showing recommended amendments to the existing UDRP, rather
than a whole new policy. And then we should proceed with a more limited
PDP. Accordingly, I propose a different motion re IGO DRP, as follows:

Whereas:

- The Issues Report for IGO
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf)
has been released and discussed

- and in response to a GNSO Council resolution the ICANN Staff has produced
a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf)

- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on
commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a
revised IGO DRP
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf)

Resolves: 

- The GNSO initiates a PDP to discuss amendments to the UDRP which would
enable IGOs to pursue domain names referring to IGO names via the UDRP and,
in the event of an unfavorable decision by a UDRP panel, to challenge that
decision via a new appeal process to be added to the UDRP and which shall be
limited to disputes regarding IGO names.

- As initial material for the PDP, the following will be used:
- the Issues report prepared by the staff

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf
- the DRP proposal prepared by the staff
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
- the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf
- a new document to be prepared by Staff no later than January 12, 2008,
showing proposed amendments to the UDRP based upon the IPC's Nov. 28th
proposal, rather than an entirely new DRP proposal

- Staff will request Constituency representatives by January 12, 2008, who
shall meet and confer in order to recommend to Council, no later than
January 26, 2008, whether or not a Task Force is needed for this PDP. 

At that point, Council can decide to accept that recommendation, or not, but
the PDP would continue down one of the two paths in the Bylaws (Task Force,
or Constituency Impact Statements).

Also I am not clear about the proposed appeal process for IGOs, which I
thought was the fundamental reason they wanted changes to the UDRP. Seems
there would need to be a further arbitration agreement added to the
Registration Agreement, that binds registrants to a further arbitration in
the event of an IGO disputing a UDRP decision. The IPC's revised proposal
says that any 'arbitral tribunal' with appropriate jurisdiction can hear an
IGO's appeal, but isn't the only/best way for an arbitral tribunal to get
jurisdiction over a registrant via the Registration Agreement? And doesn't
that raise other questions about what arbitration providers and processes
should be named in the contract?

I am also curious why we are not considering a different approach to help
out IGOs, much like ICANN protects itself and related organizations via the
Reserved Names list. It seems rather easy for ICANN to add the Paris
Convention 6ter list as Reserved Names in newTLDs. Of course that doesn't
help IGOs with their concerns re existing TLDs, and so we still may need
UDRP modifications, but seems to me at least worth consideration. Generally
I do not see why IGO names should be treated differently than ICANN-related
names, so perhaps we should also take ICANN-related names off the Reserved
Names list, and make them subject to the new IGO-amended UDRP.

Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP



Hi,

We have the vote on creating a PDP on the IGO DRP n the agnda for this 
week's meeting. the following are the proposed motions on this 
subject. they can be found in the motins page of docs.google.com).

thanks
a.


-- Motion 1 on IGO-DRP:

Whereas:

- The Issues report for IGO
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf 
) has been released and discussed

- and in response to a council resolution the staff has produced a 
proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report- 
v2-28sep07.pdf)

- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote 
on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a 
proposal for a revised IGO DRP
(insert pointer)

Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation on a PDP 
on IGO dispute Resolution Procedures


-- Motion 2 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of Motion 1 on IGO-DRP

Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on IGO-Dispute 
Resolution mechanism, a Task Force will be created according to the By- 
laws, section 5 of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process. As 
initial material for the PDP, the following will be used:
- the Issues report prepared by the staff

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf
- the DRP proposal prepared by the staff
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
- the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf


-- Motion 3 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of Motion 1 on IGO-DRP

Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on IGO-Dispute 
Resolution mechanism, and whereas the holiday season is rapidly 
approaching, the schedule will be shifted out 2 weeks indicating that 
the requisite deadline for appointment of constituency representatives 
will be delayed until Jan 12 2008.






IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx