Hi,
I tend to agree that the ongoing monitoring is a bad idea. And think
you make good points about the slippery slope. I expect these would all
get discussed during a process that is brought up to reconsider the
previous policy recommendations.
My point is we ask others, like the Board, to have real contentful
reconsideration processes. In this case the GNSO has a process to do
contentful reconsideration, and I argue we need to do it.
avri
On 19-Jun-14 12:53, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Avri and All Councilors,
> There is a real chilling effect of ongoing monitoring -- it was
> something that all members of NCSG on the STI team that wrote the rules
> for the TMCH and URS discussed and feared. The goal was a narrow and
> limited Trademark Claims period to allow trademark owners to monitor the
> new gTLDs and early registration.
>
> There is a chilling effect of permanent monitoring for all IGO acronyms
> - and its a right/privilege everyone will want (e.g., all trademark
> owners). It is an expansion of the TMCH. If we have to give IGOs what
> the trademark owners have, then we have to... but more than the
> trademark owners have?
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> :
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:32:53 -0400
>> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]>
>> CC: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tend to support this analysis.
>>
>> I think they are trying to do the right thing in terms of reconciling
>> differences between policy recommendations, advice and implementation
>> issues by referencing our own processes.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 17-Jun-14 13:15, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>> All,
>>> I would like to offer a few thoughts for your consideration:
>>>
>>> 1. Unlike in the meeting in Singapore, the Board / NGPC is not asking us
>>> to change GNSO policy recommendation by way of negotiation. Some
>>> rightfully pointed out that the policy recommendations cannot be changed
>>> informally by way of negotiations. The letter we received does not
>>> suggest that, but it refers to the existing procedure to revisit and
>>> potentially modify GNSO policy recommendation.
>>>
>>> 2. The NGPC's initiative to contact the parties involved is the right
>>> way. It is my view that it is the Board's / NGPC's responsibility to
>>> assess whether solutions can be found to mitigate friction between the
>>> GAC and the GNSO. Imagine the Board had just made a determination
>>> without reaching out to either party. I would have perceived that as
>>> top-down. Again, if proper process allows for considering and actually
>>> reaching compromise solutions, it is legitimate to ask the GNSO Council
>>> to consider this option.
>>>
>>> 3. Looking at what would need to be done, the modifications would be
>>> required:
>>>
>>> - The GNSO recommendations included one that would permit IGO acronyms
>>> for a 90 days claims service. The request is that this is extended to
>>> the lifetime of the TMCH. So basically we are talking about extending
>>> the
>>>
>>> - Opening the URS for these designations. That is covered by the
>>> recently initiated PDP. I also note that the Board has indicated they
>>> will wait for the outcome of the PDP.
>>>
>>> - Protecting additional RCRC designations, which have so far been
>>> granted the 90 days claims service in our recommendations.
>>>
>>> From memory, protections for IGO acronym protections have been the most
>>> controversial designations both at the WG as well as the Council level.
>>> For these, we are not asked for additional protections such as reserving
>>> or blocking.
>>>
>>> There should be a discussion whether or not the Council should reconvene
>>> the WG. I am standing by to continue chairing the WG and its
>>> deliberations if need be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me suggest we discuss the following two questions separately:
>>>
>>> 1. Shall the NGPC's recommendation be followed and the WG reconvene?
>>>
>>> 2. How does the Council view the Board's / NGPC's approach to resolving
>>> the issue?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the concerns of many are relating to the second,
>>> fundamental question. This is why I think it would be helpful to
>>> separate the two, i.e. talk about the specific suggestion relating to
>>> the policy recommendations and also about the more general issue.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 17.06.2014 um 18:22 schrieb [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>> Based on the presentation we got from Chris Disspain in Singapore,
>>>> the
>>>> Board is trying to figure out how to abide by the contradictory
>>>> Council policy (passed unanimously) and GAC advice (s growing presence
>>>> in the life of ICANN) on the matter. I feel their pain, but
>>>> worry/assume in the current Internet governance-fueled environment, if
>>>> a collaborative solution is not found, the GAC will prevail.
>>>> Not compromise or capitulation, but collaboration.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Berard
>>>>
>>>> --------- Original Message ---------
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>>> From: "Maria Farrell" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Date: 6/17/14 9:08 am
>>>> To: "Jonathan Robinson" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Cc: "Marika Konings" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "James M. Bladel"
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
>>>> "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks so much, Jonathan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 June 2014 16:51, Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks James & Maria,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Noted. We have a lengthy slot on Saturday to discuss
>>>> substantial issues as well as our session with the Board.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I expect that this issue can be well aired then and it is also
>>>> likely to be on our agenda for the public GNSO Council meeting
>>>> on Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Maria Farrell [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>> *Sent:* 17 June 2014 15:19
>>>> *To:* Marika Konings
>>>> *Cc:* James M. Bladel; [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>>> This indeed very concerning - a further extension of
>>>> supra-legal 'rights' using the TMCH, itself a deeply
>>>> problematic mechanism created in inequitable circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> I also hope that sufficient time will be allocated at our
>>>> meeting to discuss this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Maria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 June 2014 08:12, Marika Konings
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll get the letter posted on the GNSO correspondence page.
>>>> Please note that in the meantime it is also available from the
>>>> Council mailing list archives
>>>>
>>>> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfJhQNX8whn3.pdf).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"James M. Bladel" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Date: *Tuesday 17 June 2014 08:47
>>>> *To: *Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan and fellow Councilors:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a concerning development, and I hope we will have
>>>> ample space on our agenda to discuss in London. Question:
>>>> Will this letter be published on the GNSO/ICANN
>>>> correspondence page in advance of the weekend sessions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks—
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Organization: *Afilias
>>>> *Reply-To: *"[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Date: *Monday, June 16, 2014 at 23:11
>>>> *To: *GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Subject: *[council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FYI and for further discussion / follow-up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 21:09
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> *Subject:* Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing
>>>> an update on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the
>>>> GNSO policy recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO
>>>> identifiers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Megan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Megan Bishop
>>>>
>>>> Board Support Coordinator
>>>>
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
>>>>
>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 <tel:%2B1-310-795-1894>
>>>>
>>>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808 <tel:%2B1-310-301-5808>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /One World. One Internet./
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
|
