Reasonable yes, possible no. Pesky little thing called the ICANN Bylaws.
The decision to go forward with an IRP will have to be made prior to the
resolution of any sort of PDP process. That said, we're not even at the
point yet where a decision about an IRP needs to be made.
The next step towards an IRP is asking for a CEP to be started. The
Cooperative Engagement Process, per article IV, section 3 of the ICANN
Bylaws, attempts to solve the issue at contention through a process of
formal negotiation prior to the commencement of an IRP action. It is
valuable in it's own right, as well as being necessary to limit our
financial liability vis a vis the Board should we proceed with an IRP.
Of course, it is more than reasonable to separately also commence a PDP on
the matter. However, let's not mistake this for being a political issue.
It's nice to have friends, it's nicer to be right. The IRP is a legal
process, not a political process. The determination as to whether to ho
forward with an IRP should not be made with reference to how popular our
effort is with fellow members of the Community, but rather needs to be a
cold hearted decision about our chances of actually winning the action.
Until the CEP is concluded we can not, nor should we, make such a
calculation.
We need to send notification of our intent to proceed with the CEP no later
than July 17th. We should do so. The CEP, not a PDF, is the antecedent
needed prior to the IRP. A PDF would also be welcome on a separate, dual
track approach to knocking back this horrible, both in terms of policy and
of procedure, decision.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 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
> ***************************************************************
>
> ** **
>
|
