RE: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good points Avri.

I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.

If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council



Hi,

Thanks.

I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.

I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but
could not find the quotables.


One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues
report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not
expect that either:

- there were the final charters
- that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free
standing and open to edits, if necessary.  A final issue report is not
amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be.  These charter
offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for
change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff
produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.

So thanks for separating it into a separating document.  If possible I would
like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for
charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion.  If
possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this
technicality.

thanks

avri


On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hello Avri and everyone,
> 
> Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to 
> the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft 
> WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the 
> consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of 
> the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to 
> considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically 
> noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, 
> therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the 
> ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 
> 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry 
> into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level
protections.
> 
> Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection 
> for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would 
> simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has 
> registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. 
> This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. 
> blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation 
> where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, 
> it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can 
> - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG 
> reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to 
> enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
> 
> (Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG 
> only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 
> identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for 
> INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations 
> were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
> 
> FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the 
> Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG 
> Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few 
> minor
> changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a 
> recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP 
> Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version 
> and attach it to this email for your reference.
> 
> I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for 
> Council
> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer 
>> Session and get back to you after that.
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be 
>>> found as an annex to the final issues report?
>>>
>>> Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the 
>>> charter yet.  I don't recall it.
>>>
>>> As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the 
>>> scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been 
>>> already been granted.  This concern translates into concern over the 
>>> mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed 
>>> during the IGO/INGO WG.  A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on 
>>> the scope of identifiers that can be considered.  Obviously it goes 
>>> beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do 
>>> not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent 
>>> a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the 
>>> Final Issues report trying to figure that out.  For example I wasn't 
>>> able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for 
>>> considerations?  I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
>>>
>>> So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand 
>>> the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to 
>>> explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting.  I thus also do not have 
>>> a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that 
>>> they run the entire gambit.  I  need to understand the scope better 
>>> and may not be ready to vote at this point.
>>>
>>> I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening 
>>> the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental 
>>> and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
>>> This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
>>>
>>> Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just 
>>> missing it.  Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I 
>>> would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>> Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later 
>>>> today. I herewith second the motions.
>>>>
>>>> As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would 
>>>> very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there 
>>>> might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will 
>>>> enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking 
>>>> ready prior or in the call.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation 
>>>> we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this 
>>>> very PDP should be conducted.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson 
>>>> <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council 
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas 
>>>>> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation 
>>>>> for the Issue Report.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to 
>>>>> propose the motions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion 
>>>>> for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
>>>>
>>
>