Hi,

I see no problem going down both routes.

1. ask for an issues report on TM+50
2. put together an argument for IRP + request for fee coverage by ICANN as we are part of ICANN. Perhaps the fact that GAC members and ALAC had provisions for fees for objections to be covered by ICANN could be a helpful argument.

i am not volunteering to work on either for bandwidth reasons, but if there are people to work on these, it would be great to see them done.

avri

On 4 Jul 2013, at 11:03, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Seems reasonable to me. It does let the staff off the hook but it is certainly a less costly way to challenge the result than an IRP.
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN Board dismisses NCSG reconsideration request on ICANN violating process by adopting TM+50 policy
> 
> Hi
> 
> I agree with Marie-Laure and would think pushing this in Council is a good antecedent step before trying for an IRP, inter alia as it would de-bilateralize things a bit and force some clarification of whether, upon reflection, anyone else is with us.  It'd also provide a clear operational plan for Durban, given that we'll be a bit short handed with respect to pursuing alternatives.  
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 3:22 AM, marie-laure Lemineur <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Just an idea.....I don´t know if it is a good one but.....While I was reading the recommendation of the BGC, and bearing in mind what we discussed yesterday during our conference call, it struck me that we could follow the BGC suggestion/idea as quoted p.11 :
> 
> "Third, the Chair of the GNSO Council’s response that the previously abusive name issue is “best addressed as a policy concern” does not mean that staff has done more than implementation or that staff has contradicted an existing policy or process. Instead it actually confirms the absence of clear Policy from the GNSO beyond Recommendation 3. The staff approach was conservative, and there is nothing that cannot be undone. The GNSO is free to initiate a Policy Development Process in this area to recommend a new Policy. If such GNSO Policy concurs with the current implementation approach, then there should be no issue. If an eventual adopted Policy does not agree with the current approach, the approach can be overturned."
> 
> Request a new PDP on the matter...
> 
> Of course, this does not exclude that we can also move forward in parallel and file for an Independent Review Panel  OR we can decide to choose the new PDP option/strategy and forget about the Panel Review....
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Marie-laure
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> ICANN New gtld program committee adopted BGC's revised rationale dismissing NCSG's request for reconsideration.  We should file for an Independent Review Panel determination and ask ICANN and/or the arbitrators to waive our costs, which are otherwise prohibitive.  There is no accountability "within" ICANN, as this situation has demonstrated.  We need to go outside of ICANN to get any constraints on ICANN's lawlessness.  - Robin
> 
> 2 July 2013 - Resolution Approved by ICANN Board New GTLD Cmte:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm#1.a
> Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
> 
> Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names".
> 
> Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in the BGC's Recommendation.
> 
> Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was warranted with respect to Request 13-3.
> 
> Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 142 KB].
> 
> Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> [log in to unmask]  
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************