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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, obviously I agree with Volker.  That is the position of the registrars.  I 
look forward to the discussion on a reply.


On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> 
> 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/
>