RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, thank you, Liz - I appreciate the explanation but, like Jeff and
Mason, remain concerned about how the decisions as to what comment
periods are to be launched are made in the absence either of community
input or direct motion. 

For this particular instance, and after a bit of digging around, I
think it may be at least in part due to a January 4, 2012 letter sent by
Asst. Secretary Strickling to Steve Crocker/the ICANN Board (link
attached:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf).
Two of the three main points raised in the letter parallel much of the
request for comment (i.e. finding out more about top level defensive
registration concerns and engaging directly with stakeholders about the
program); the third is interesting for explicitly stating that NTIA will
work with the community and, specifically, the GAC to determine if
additional protections are warranted at the second level. 

Quite aside from the specific question I raised about process, this is
perhaps something that the GNSO should be aware of, as any developments
as a result seems to me to come particularly within our purview.  

Cheers 
Mary  


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu 


>>> 


From:  
"Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Gasster"
<liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David
Olive" <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
2/19/2012 3:38 PM 

Subject:  
RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  - public comment
period opened 


Thanks Liz for the input.  I would agree with Jeff here -- comment
periods for little apparent or unjustified reasons are not just a time
problem, they are indicative of further freelancing of possible policy
establishment outside what the community should reasonably be able to
count on.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Mon 2/13/2012 9:42 AM
To: Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David
Olive
Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  - public
comment period opened


To the extent that this involves policy related to the gTLDs, yes I
believe this is something that should be discussed with the community
(not just the council).  It is hard enough to keep up with the public
comment periods that we know about (or that we know will be coming), but
then to be expected to comment on additional items that come up randomly
at the decision of ICANN staff is too much to ask.  This is especially
the case where if we do not have time to respond, ICANN staff/Board will
tell the world "We had a public comment period, and no one
responded....and therefore (a) the public is not concerned, (b) the
direction ICANN is headed is right, or (c) there really is not an
issue."  Although one of those conclusions may be right, it is also
possible that none of them are right.

The point being is that we should not have random public comment
periods thrown up by ICANN staff unless there is some clear concrete
objective criteria for utilizing the public comment period and that
criteria is followed.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:34 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO; David Olive
Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public
comment period opened


Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by
staff?

I'm curious as to: (1)
> what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon
> which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests
for
> clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common)
> soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific
> policy matters.
>
> More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment
> periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of
> Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be
> established based on coordinated community input and consultation
with
> staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?

The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related
public comment periods.  I will direct your question about this specific
comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response.

Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6
months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask
about anticipated comment periods.  We have never received a response
from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or
expect is coming up, without prioritization.  Filiz Yilmaz is the staff
person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community.

Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to
the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include
Filiz in those discussions.

Thanks, Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO; David Olive
Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public
comment period opened


Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please?

Stéphane



Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
> It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It
looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction -
although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening.
Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
>
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von
> william.drake@xxxxxx
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34
> An: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public
> comment period opened
>
>
> While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary
that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> -----<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
>
> =======================
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  -
public
> comment period opened =======================
>   Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether
and
> how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly
> non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
>
> While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information
> about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the
need
> to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be
> useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better
communicate
> to trademark holders the current protections available (including
the
> option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1)
> what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon
> which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests
for
> clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common)
> soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific
> policy matters.
>
> More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment
> periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of
> Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be
> established based on coordinated community input and consultation
with
> staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
>
> (OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might
> lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the
> Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
>
> I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your
constituents
> think.
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
> SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
> 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available
> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
>
>
> From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx> To:"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM
> Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  - public
> comment period opened
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
>
> Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
>
> Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
>
> Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
>
> Purpose (Brief): The New gTLD Program features carefully crafted,
new
> protections for trademark owners and consumers. When considering
> applications for new top-level names, the process is designed to
> protect these important interests through independent objection and
> dispute resolution processes (and other processes). However, as the
> time of the opening of the new gTLD application window drew near,
> parties stated their perception that they will need to submit
> "defensive" gTLD applications as a means to protect their
trademarks.
> ICANN is seeking public comment on the sources of this perception
and
> how it can be addressed
>
> Public Comment Box Link:
>
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/newgtlds-defensive-applications
> -06feb12-en.htm
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>