[council] FOR REVIEW: IGO acronyms - differences between GNSO policy, GAC advice and the small group proposal
Dear Councilors,
At the request of the Chairs, staff has put together the attached note that
attempts to summarize the differences between the adopted GNSO policy
recommendations, GAC advice received, and the recent small group proposal
regarding IGO acronyms protection. The document includes a tabular comparison
of these differences as well as some notes that we hope will be helpful to your
discussions and analysis.
As the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group is finalizing its preliminary
recommendations regarding dispute resolution for IGOs, and as Phil has
summarized in email (below) the status of those Working Group deliberations, we
have not included these in the document.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "James M. Bladel"
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 22:00
To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on
IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
Phil –
Thank you for the quick turn on this analysis.
Councilors –
Recognizing that this proposal came after our agenda deadline, but please try
to review it if you have a chance before our next call. If possible, we will
add it as a discussion item under AOB.
Thank you,
J.
From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 17:20
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO
acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
Fellow Councilors:
As Co-Chair of the Working Group reviewing Curative Rights Processes (CRP) for
International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), I feel it incumbent to
provide my initial reaction to this Board letter. In doing so I note that
transmission of the letter has been delayed until after the completion of the
IANA transition, and that the post-transition role of governments within ICANN
was a central controversy surrounding the transition.
The CRP WG has labored for the last two years to develop a report and
recommendations that are objective and based in fact and relevant law. In order
to assure that our conclusions were sound, we suspended our work for nearly one
year in order to locate and secure the services of a legal expert on the
central subject of the generally recognized scope of IGO sovereign immunity.
During this period we continually urged members of the GAC, and IGOs, to
participate in our WG. That participation was so sporadic that it amounted to a
near-boycott, and when IGO representatives did provide any input they stressed
that they were speaking solely as individuals and were not providing the
official views of the organizations that employed them. Of course, why should
they participate in the GNSO policy processes when they are permitted to pursue
their goals in extended closed door discussions with the Board, and when the
Board seeks no input from the GNSO in the course of those talks?
Turning to the relevant substance of the Board letter and the attached IGO
“Small Group” Proposal, I note that this Proposal statement is demonstrably
incorrect—
The IGO-GAC-NGPC small group that has been discussing the topic of appropriate
IGO protections, based on the NGPC’s initial proposal of March 2014, agree that
the following general principles should underpin the framework for any
permanent solution concerning the protection of IGO names and acronyms in the
domain name system:
(1) The basis for protection of IGO acronyms should not be founded in
trademark law, as IGOs are created by governments under international law and
are in an objectively different category of rights-holders; (Emphasis added)
In fact, our WG found that many IGOs have trademarked their organizational
names and acronyms and have successfully utilized the UDRP. Further, and more
relevant, Article 6ter of the Paris Convention provides IGOs with protection of
their names and acronyms within the trademark law systems of all Convention
signatories, as well as all members of the World Trade Organization, with such
protection available through a simple registration procedure with WIPO. So,
contrary to the statement quoted above, the basis for IGO acronym protections
has already been linked to trademark law.
Turning to the relevant portion of the IGO Proposal---
2. Dispute Resolution Mechanism
• ICANN will facilitate the development of rules and procedures for a
separate(i.e., separate from the existing UDRP) dispute resolution mechanism to
resolve claims of abuse of domain names that are registered and being used in
situations where the registrant is pretending to be the IGO or that
are otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception, and (a) are identical to
an IGO acronym; (b) are confusingly similar to an IGO acronym; or (c) contain
the IGO acronym.
• Decisions resulting from this mechanism shall be “appealable” through an
arbitral process to be agreed.
--While our WG is in the process of vetting our preliminary report and
recommendations, because it has operated transparently it is no secret that it
has decided against creation of a new DRP for the sole and exclusive use of
IGOs because there is no demonstrated need to do so. Further, as regards
availability of arbitration for appeals from initial CRP decisions, while that
matter is still being finalized by the WG, to the extent it is premised upon
broad claims of IGO sovereign immunity such claims are not generally supported
by existing legal views according to the report received from our retained
expert on international law.
Here are some other preliminary observations:
· The timing of this letter, and the specific DRP recommendations
contained in the attached Proposal, are likely to complicate final agreement
within the WG on our preliminary report and recommendations. IGOs, having
chosen not to meaningfully participate in the WG, are now disrupting its final
stage.
· It appears that the proposal we have just received has not been
endorsed by the Board, but is simply the IGO small group’s “consensus on a
proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes will
be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO”. Although these IGOs have not
meaningfully participated in our WG, they are known to have monitored our work
closely enough that they surely know that these proposals stand in stark
opposition to the WG’s preliminary conclusions.
Finally, in regard to this statement in the Board letter—
The Board’s understanding is that those aspects of the proposal that
concern curative rights protection may be referred by the GNSO Council to the
GNSO’s Working Group that is
conducting the ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO-INGO Access to
Curative Rights Mechanisms. We understand further that the Working Group is
currently discussing
preliminary recommendations that it intends to publish for public comment soon,
in the form of an Initial Report. We therefore hope that the presentation of
the attached proposal is timely,
and will be fully considered by the Working Group regarding the specific topic
of enabling adequate curative rights protections for IGO acronyms, and in
conjunction with the GNSO
Council’s management of the overall process for possible reconciliation of GNSO
policy with GAC advice. We also acknowledge, in line with prior correspondence
between the Board’s New
gTLD Program Committee and the GNSO Council, that the Board will not take
action with respect to GAC advice on curative rights protections for IGOs prior
to the conclusion of the
GNSO’s PDP.
- I appreciate the Board’s assurance that it will take no action with respect
to GAC advice on CRP for IGOs until the current PDP is concluded. I further
note that ICANN staff has already transmitted the Board letter and attached IGO
Proposal to all members of the CRP WG and, following consultation with my
Co-Chair, it will likely be the main topic of discussion at the WG’s next
meeting on October 13th. I can assure you that the Proposal will be fully
considered by the WG. However, given the fact that the Proposal is at nearly
complete odds with the WG’s preliminary conclusions, and that the IGOs chose
not to participate in the WG in any significant way and thereby take advantage
of the opportunity to make their case to those community volunteers who have
labored in good faith on this project for more than two years, it is most
unlikely that the WG will now abandon its own conclusions and adopt those of
the IGOs.
The Board letter closes with the observation that it wants to “ reiterate our
belief that the most appropriate approach for the Board in this matter is to
help to facilitate a procedural way forward for the reconciliation of GAC
advice and GNSO policy prior to the Board formally considering substantive
policy recommendations”. With all respect, what has occurred seems a thoroughly
inappropriate approach for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy. This Council
has undertaken extraordinary steps to conduct outreach to the GAC and to strive
to integrate it within the GNSO policy development process, and much of that
progress is at risk of being undone by how this matter is ultimately decided.
What is at stake in this matter goes far beyond the relatively rare instance in
which a domain registrant infringes upon the name or acronym of an IGO and the
IGO seeks relief through a CRP. The larger issue is whether, in a
post-transition ICANN, the GAC and the UN agencies that comprise a large
portion of IGOs, will participate meaningfully in GNSO policy activities, or
will seek their policy aims by bypassing the ICANN community and engaging in
direct, closed door discussions with the Board. Therefore, how the GNSO and the
Board ultimately resolve this matter will have implications far beyond the
narrow issue of available CRPs for IGOs. If IGOs are successful in attaining
their policy aims through the course of action they have pursued it will send a
most unfortunate message that will be detrimental to the functioning of an
ICANN in which community members representing business, technology, and civil
society are supposed to have the lead role in setting policy, and in which
governments are supposed to have a secondary, advisory role.
Sincerely,
Philip S. Corwin
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 5:03 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Crocker; Chris Disspain; bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Markus
Kummer; Becky Burr; board-ops-team@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO
acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
Dear Councilors,
Please find attached the ICANN Board’s reply to the GNSO Council’s letter of 31
May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The letter
also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was worked on
by the IGO “small group” of IGO, Board and GAC representatives, facilitated by
ICANN staff as appropriate.
We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO
Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC.
Best regards,
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=m3R8J8X5FdZpOe4Y-rUGxv3sOPGS72fS1ftoi0wY-4M&s=8_uT9lCSDUAjpaxQYyo8yU9hMaxJLg8k6W7K06lWBJ4&e=>
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13157 - Release Date: 10/06/16
Attachment:
Comparison of GNSO policy GAC advice & small group proposal - 10 Oct 2016.docx
|