Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi James, it is correct that the Board is still considering some of the recommendations. However, the Council has accepted a recommendation that we should initiate a PDP on this topic. I think we should now implement what we have resolved earlier on. While I am all for efficiency, I think that our work should be independent from potential Board action at this stage so that the Council is seen to be translating its resolution into action in a timely fashion. I hope you agree with this. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 17:00 schrieb 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> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > Attachment:
signature.asc
|