Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Volker:

>> It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy 
>> decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that 
>> have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not 
>> be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom 
>> meetings and rather rely on its established processes. 



--Wendy

On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Thank-you Volker,
> 
>  
> 
> I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a 
> fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or 
> positions is effectively communicated.
> 
>  
> 
> Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point.  Especially since you 
> sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous 
> consideration of these issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Others, please chime in.  Especially with regard to any of the specifics 
> where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Volker Greimann
> Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This 
> position has been further supported by a review  of preceeding policy 
> decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly 
> matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a 
> very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions. 
> 
> It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy 
> decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have 
> not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be 
> subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom 
> meetings and rather rely on its established processes. 
> 
> If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the 
> time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best 
> consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of 
> the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week.  I 
> believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered 
> and comprehensive a manner as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it 
> raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so 
> that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
> 
>  
> 
> Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
> 
>  
> 
> Noting:
> 
>  
> 
> “I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of 
> the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman 
> Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations” 
> 
>  
> 
> And 
> 
>  
> 
> “… a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it 
> requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive 
> registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2)”
> 
>  
> 
> Thank-you.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive
> Subject: TMCH
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
>  
> 
> As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: 
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/),
>  the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of 
> a strawman model  to address some of the proposed improvements requested by 
> the BC/IPC.   I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in 
> these discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to 
> the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs.
> 
>  
> 
> I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of 
> the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman 
> Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations.   Each 
> of these documents are posted for public comment 
> (see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm)
>  to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals.  
> Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the 
> expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any 
> aspect of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is 
> interested in broadening its response.  The specific proposal is that:
> 
>  
> 
> Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of 
> previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court 
> proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a 
> Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record 
> for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse).  
> Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices 
> as well as the notices to the rights holder. 
> 
>  
> 
> Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited 
> preventative registrations.  In general, there was not support among 
> non-IPC/BC participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive 
> registrations among the participants in the TMCH meetings.   After hearing 
> concerns regarding this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description 
> of a preventative mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which 
> has also been published for public comment.    As this issue is relevant to a 
> request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it 
> requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive 
> registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am 
> seeking GNSO Council feedback on this IPC/BC proposal as well.
> 
>  
> 
> It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its 
> December meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in 
> convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not 
> circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting 
> always clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming.  One of my 
> goals as CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles 
> difficult issues.   I truly believe that the development of strawman 
> proposals on this and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and 
> implementation discussions.   I hope that you will consider this request in 
> that light.
> 
>  
> 
> We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best Personal Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Fadi Chehade
> 
> President and CEO
> 
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/