[council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's 
recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request?

As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next Council 
call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board meeting).  A number of 
us on the GNSO completely disagree with the rationale that was used to justify 
the outcome (even if we do not dispute the outcome).  We believe that the BGC's 
rationale will undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model (as in my 
previous e-mail to the council which I have attached).  

We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision on this 
reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the GNSO Council and 
its members on our thoughts about this decision.  I personally believe if the 
Board adopts this recommendation (more particularly the rationale for the 
recommendation), the Board will have not officially put the nail in the coffin 
for the Reconsideration process as an accountability measure, but will have 
also the multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it.

I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done before) on 
this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea for the Board to 
forgo any definitive action on this request until such time that we can be 
heard.  We also ask whether anyone from the BGC could be available to discuss 
this issue with us on the GNSO Council call. 

P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to whether the 
Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place as an RPM.  Rather, 
we strongly disagree with the assumptions and fundamentally-flawed rationale in 
the BGC's recommendation.

Best regards,


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  / www.neustar.biz 




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:14 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee


From:  
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-11jun13-en.htm


11 June 2013
 

Consent Agenda:

 * Approval of Minutes
 
Main Agenda:

 *  BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3

*  Info Discussion on ALAC Statement on IDN Variants

*  Plural vs. Singular

*  Any Other Business

--- Begin Message ---

• To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
• From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:42:06 +0000
• Accept-language: en-US
• Importance: high
• In-reply-to: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4B0BD6@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
• List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4B0BD6@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
• Sender: "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Thread-index: Ac5WOFCqeiAcsYiTR7yrDn/KlyPkSQAwKdtg
• Thread-topic: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse

Bruce,

Thanks for forwarding.  I think there are some points in here that need to be 
discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my view) in the logic of 
the assumptions behind the decision. I would like to propose adding this as a 
topic for the next council meeting and inviting one or more members of the BGC 
to our call.

I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision in a 
subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda and get the 
invites out there to the BGC.  I would also request that the ICANN Board to NOT 
adopt this recommendation until a full discussion can take place.

PLEASE NOTE:  I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING 50 
VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS.  AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE BUILDING IN THE 
CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO OTHERS.   BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED 
WITH THE WORDING OF THIS DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE 
IMPACT ON THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED 
TO SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.

This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside 
legal counsel).  It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be 
written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder 
model.   If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their 
proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways 
that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration 
Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model.  It not 
only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an 
accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not 
step in.

Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members to the next 
Council meeting?

Thanks.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial 
Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse

Hello All,

For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from 
the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).

These have been published at:

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration

The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in 
Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

--- End Message ---