<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
I support Jeff's approach as well. And Thomas makes good suggestions.
One observation on a recommendation by Thomas -- I'm not sure we should ask the
GAC for its interpretation of policy vs implementation. I don't know that they
would provide it in the first place. More to the point, as Jeff correctly
points out in his draft, there's no real test for it -- it's implied generally
by the outcomes of our work and isn't formally a filter for part of
decision-making. If the community decides later that it should be, that's one
thing. Imposing it is another. So if we're going to ask the GAC about it, I
prefer not to do it here -- it will bog down this process, and I believe it
should be dealt with as a stand-alone issue.
On Dec 6, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Jeff, Jonathan, all,
> first of all, thank you Jeff and your colleagues for a well written and
> thoughtful draft letter.
>
> Following Jonathan's proposal, let me respond as follows:
>
> 1. Is the approach taken below one which you broadly do or do not
> support?
>
> I do support that aproach.
>
> 2. If yes to 1 above, please indicate if there are any additional areas
> not covered or areas that could be improved?
>
> A.
>
> I think it would be helpful to add some history, which we have discussed this
> during the IGO-INGO WG call. We might want to point out that the Reserved
> Names WG has dealt with this issue a few years back and - while not
> particularly having discussed the IOC RCRC, there was an intentional decision
> not to add such designations to the reserved names list. The group wanted to
> leave the protection to the RPMs.
>
> This point should be made IMHO because it underlines that this is a topic
> that has been part of policy making in the past and that it should not be
> dealt with differently. Even the IOC, in its letter of February 11, 2011,
> made a statement that clearly indicates that merely reserving the names is
> not in their interest and that an exemption procedure is needed, which
> requires policy work:
>
> <PastedGraphic-1.pdf>
>
>
> The letter can be found here:
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/lacotte-stupp-to-pritz-stathos-01feb11-en.pdf
> B.
>
> Also, I would recommend we state that the original request was made regarding
> the IOC and RCRC only while stating that these organizations have a unique
> tapestry of protections, while it has now been opened to other IGO names.
> Hence, there must be some understanding that changing requirements require
> more time of analysis.
>
> C.
>
> ICANN's aim is to be globally inclusive and to serve all stakeholders. That
> means that, while we take the GAC's concerns and requests (not sure I would
> call it advice here since GAC Advice is a legal term reserved to the
> interaction with the Board in my view) seriously, it is imperative for the
> GNSO being ICANN's BUMS policy making body to also hear the arguments of
> other stakeholders prior to making recommendations. This is to ensure that
> legitimate interests of other stakeholders (e.g. legitimate use of
> designations in question) are also basis for a decision.
>
> D.
>
> In Jeff's proposal it is stated:
>
> 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.
>
> I would prefer not to give the impression that WE might be misunderstanding
> something, but rather invite the GAC to explain their understanding of the
> distinction between "policy" and "implementation" and that this will help the
> mutual understanding of approach and processes.
>
> E.
>
> We might wish to make reference to the point mentioned in the joint GAC /
> Board meeting that this topic shall serve as a case study and therefore
> invite the GAC to participate in the WG or present the idea of a Liaison,
> which was recently discussed.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> Am 06.12.2012 um 19:51 schrieb "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Thanks. We did consider adding something like this to our draft letter, but
>> in the end decided not to. It simply isn’t enough or helpful (in our view)
>> to say the GNSO considered policy development activities on this because the
>> board told us to do so in their resolution. After all, then it could be
>> argued by others that the Board acted erroneously in telling us to consider
>> it in the first place.
>>
>> We wanted in a respectful way to point out that this does in fact involve
>> policy, and we are the appropriate body to consider the policy issues,
>> whether the Board tells us to or not.
>>
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>
>>
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:42 PM
>> To: 'Brian Peck'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th
>> Letter
>>
>> Many thanks Brian. That’s helpful. Jonathan
>>
>> From: Brian Peck [mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 06 December 2012 17:15
>> To: Jonathan Robinson; 'Neuman, Jeff'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th
>> Letter
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> In response to your question in relation to responding to the GAC on the
>> issue of what was the impetus for the Council to take up the work on the IGO
>> name protection issue, it may be helpful to note as background that the
>> Board in its 11 March 2012 letter formally asked both the GAC and the GNSO
>> Council for policy advice on the protection of IGO names:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-beckstrom-to-dryden-van-gelder-11mar12-en.pdf
>>
>>
>> In addition, some of the other considerations taken into account for the
>> Council requesting the Issues Report on the protection of International
>> Organization names to include IGO names – including requests from IGOs to
>> obtain the same level of of any protections provided to the RCRC and IOC,
>> are noted in the motion adopted to request the Issues Report:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-12apr12-en.htm
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/12 3:08 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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] On
>> Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>> Sent: 05 December 2012 22:42
>> To: 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/>
>>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
>
> Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
> www.anwaelte.de
>
> Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
> www.eco.de
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|