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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Building on this discussion, I have a more basic question:

Does it make sense to proceed with this Issues Report/PDP in light of the
outstanding work to be done w.r.t the GAC and acronyms?  Are we assuming
that the outcome of those talks (which, if I’m not mistaken, haven’t
occurred yet) could be another Issues Report/PDP, that is interdependent
with this one?

We are seeing interdependencies crop up in the IRTP series of PDPs (A-D),
and from that experience, I prefer waiting until all issues & questions
are contained in a single PDP charter, rather than break them up.

Apologies if I’m missing something here...

Thanks―

J.



On 6/5/14, 7:31 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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>
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>