Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Jonathan, I do not object! Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 16:29 schrieb 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> >>>>> >>> >> > > Attachment:
signature.asc
|