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

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also support Volker's position.

Maria

On 13 December 2012 20:58, joy <joy@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks Jonathan and Volker.
> I also support the position of referring back to earlier policy
> decisions and the rejection of proposals that do not follow proper
> policy making processes.
> Given that the IP constituency has had a considerable hand in driving
> these issues (particularly of late), the professional courtesy of
> their open and honest engagement with Council discussion on this list
> would be appreciated.
>
> Joy
>
>
> On 13/12/2012 7:57 a.m., Mason Cole wrote:
> >
> > 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/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQykFpAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqid8H/jEBXm5vHfv5l/bNGHPRurLI
> OpNkarSLw+zns4snUxcjQDcWvJEObB6Fe2iMuxkqgdIuYFw6KSfpJyI3xAvO8wj0
> emmcOLHTWUHGx9VQaxVEwN6i9fA/zJkEaFj6AK9N+771j3kbiIH7v1agx3mntYTU
> hXgbSo6keP23hTGhZOHGxGIcon+p7rBhp8UjymeRNVSVjX7pKT5emw8Cf9L4dWGU
> S2bNpsrhBOTsl4SxGjHEq0lBIqCdz6ylVy9Don33g+Tw1zJIj3XkrvYZwxZFQmWI
> bjX3iThXOjl7Y6EWszmEJgC9l/I5krU31bAlcLHawApj/4zpSGk+hQ7176Uyax0=
> =XFwk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>