Hi,

I have been following up on the IGO/INGO PDP charter issues we discussed
earlier this week.

this is what I have gotten so far.

avri



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:02:25 -0700
From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]>
To: Thomas Rickert <[log in to unmask]>, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
CC: GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]>

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 <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM
To: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]>
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 <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
>> 
>> 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 
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>> 
>>>> 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>
>>> 
>