<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
- To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:17:39 -0500
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <004501cdd3a1$f560ce50$e0226af0$@ipracon.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103B14DC8@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <004501cdd3a1$f560ce50$e0226af0$@ipracon.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQG7W9cqPHyf3rnpYZnPkxeGlOktl5gwVQuggACNbKA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
Thanks Jonathan. I would be happy to keep the pen on this and help move this
forward.
Everyone, please let me know your comments ASAP. Would be great to have a
response approved during our next call.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 6:08 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th
Letter
Jeff,
Many thanks to you and your colleagues for such a considered and comprehensive
first draft. I had thought about trying to draw out key principles from
discussion on the list and then drafting.
This approach takes it a step further and faster. Great.
Rather than collectively editing the text at this point, I suggest that
councillors respond along the following lines:
1. Is the approach taken below one which you broadly do or do not support?
2. If yes to 1 above, please indicate if there are any additional areas
not covered or areas that could be improved?
3. If no to 1 above, please explain why and how you suggest we approach
this differently?
4. Are there any other substantive points not already covered in the
letter and not covered in your responses to 1-3 above?
I trust this will provide a structure for input before we go into a final
drafting mode. Once we have been through this iteration, we can work on an
approach which tweaks the final text.
One overall question I have relates to the question posed by the GAC and
implicit in our (draft) response to it below. Both seem to suggest (or
presume) we have chosen as a Council to undertake this policy work. Is this
actually the case (i.e. did we independently determine to undertake this work)
or does the history indicate that we are in fact responding to a request from
board (or elsewhere)? Mason helpfully provided sketched series of events on
Friday last week but it is not 100% clear where the primary impetus for the
GNSO undertaking this policy work came from? In any event, but along these
lines, is it helpful or provocative to provide a sketch timeline of the key
steps in this long process? As an appendix to the letter perhaps?
Thank-you again Jeff and please indicate whether or not you are willing to /
would like to continue to hold the pen on this?
Jonathan
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: 05 December 2012 22:42
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
All,
In the past few days, a few of us at Neustar have been thinking about a
proposed response to the November 28th letter from the GAC to the GNSO on the
determination to initiate a PDP on the protection of names of international
organizations. Given that we should be drafting a response, we took a stab at
coming up with a first draft to get your input on.
This is just a first draft, but one which we believe sets the right
non-confrontational tone on some issues that we know are sensitive to a number
of GAC members (and ICANN community members alike). We have also taken a stab
at defining how policy development has traditionally applied to ICANN
activities before the whole onslaught of new gTLD issues.
Please let me know your thoughts on this letter and whether this serves as a
good starting point to finalize a response.
Thanks!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Madam Chair:
I am writing in response to your letter dated 28 November 2012 seeking
information about the GNSO's determination to initiate a Policy Development
Process (PDP) on the protection of the names of international organizations "in
all gTLDs."
We are not aware of a bright line test to distinguish "policy" from
"implementation" in general, or in the ICANN context, and believe that this
question might benefit from further review and consideration within ICANN's
multi-stakeholder processes. For purposes of responding to your letter,
however, the term "policy development" has traditionally applied to ICANN's
consideration of an issue that is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement
and involves developing an approach that (1) is broadly applicable to multiple
situations or organizations; (2) is likely to have lasting value of
applicability; (3) will establish a guide or framework for future
decision-making; and/or (4) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.
The ICANN Board, the ICANN staff, and the GNSO has each concluded at different
points that the question of enhanced protections for international governmental
organizations ("IGO's") and international non-governmental organizations
("INGO's") at the top and second level meets the criteria described above.
We do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice to the ICANN Board in May
2011 regarding protections for the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and
the Red Cross/Red Crescent ("RC/RC") names, nor do we dispute the fact that
ICANN received preliminary legal advice that some 60 countries protect certain
intellectual properties of the IOC and RC/RC. We note, however, that most
such laws - like the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol
itself - provide exceptions for non-commercial uses, pre-existing commercial
uses, and certain geographic references, among other things. (To our
knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or
impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with
respect to third party registrations.) In any case, policy development is
needed to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e., for pre-existing,
non-commercial, and/or geographic use) should apply in the domain name context
- particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs.
Likewise, we do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice in Toronto with
respect to the use of the current .int registration requirements as a starting
basis for protection of IGO names and acronyms. We also appreciate your point
that this advice is "complementary" to the provision of the Applicant Guidebook
permitting use of the .int registration criteria as the basis for IGOs to file
a Legal Rights Objection to a new gTLD application. We do not understand,
however, how a prohibition of even non-infringing uses of an IGO's acronym at
the first or second level is merely an implementation of the Legal Rights
Objection policy, which provides for an independent panel to determine whether
an applicant's potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to
infringe the objector's existing IGO name or acronym. The views and
perspectives of various participants in this discussion, including those of the
Governmental Advisory Committee, have evolved over time - including quite
recently.
The GNSO believes that the issues identified above fall within the definition
of "policy" used by ICANN. We understand, of course, that the policy
development process can be time consuming. We also understand that some may
view resort to policy development as a delaying or blocking tactic. With
respect to the question of enhanced protections for international governmental
organizations, however, the GNSO has attempted to find practical solutions to
ensure that reasonable protections are in place during the pendency of the
policy discussions. That approach is reflected in the ICANN Board's recent
resolutions to create a moratorium on registration of certain names at the
second level pending this policy work.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding the distinction between "policy" and
"implementation" drawn by the GAC, and, as previously stated, the GNSO Council
would welcome further dialogue on this point. Meanwhile, we do take seriously
our obligation to respond in a collaborative, timely and transparent way when
policy development is necessary.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> /
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|