Hi Joy and All, Tx for sharing this letter. It's interesting to see how the debates continue. I think Mason had done an excellent job with this letter The reasoning is solid and the rationale is clear. The letter certainly represents deep concerns of the NCUC/NCSG Community. I wonder if the Registries are on board too? Best, Kathy : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi - reposting a message which was sent earlier today to this list, > but does not appear to have been posted . To avoid further delay, I > have copied and pasted the draft letter into this text below. > Apologies if there have been any cross-postings. > > Regards > > Joy > - -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Fwd: Draft reply from GNSO to Fadi > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:26:56 +1300 > From: joy <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > Organisation: APC > To: [log in to unmask] > > Hi all - apologies for the lateness in sending this through to this > list, but attached is an outreach from Mason Cole in drafting a GNSO > Council letter to ICANN CEO. > A number of NCSG GNSO Councillors have supported Mason to take this > letter forward and it is on the council meeting agenda for this week. > It is of course still open for edits and suggestions and, if you have > any, please do feel free to share them and we can discuss these at (or > before) the meeting > Cheers > Joy Liddicoat > > > - -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Draft reply from GNSO to Fadi > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:07:24 -0800 > From: Mason Cole <[log in to unmask]> > To: Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]>, "David Cake > ([log in to unmask]) ([log in to unmask])" > <[log in to unmask]>, Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask]>, Wolfgang > Kleinwächter <[log in to unmask]>, "Joy > Liddicoat ([log in to unmask])" <[log in to unmask]> > > Maria, David, Wendy, Wolfgang and Joy -- > > I took the liberty of drafting a council response to Fadi's request > for the council's input on the BC/IPC proposals: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13964.html > > It's attached here. The thesis is that the RPMs requested by the BC > and IPC are in fact changes to established policy and not matters of > implementation, and, further that using such categorizations as a > basis for changing policy circumvents the council in a way that isn't > acceptable. I kept the tone reasonable but I think the message comes > across. > > Before I send this to the list, would you read it over an let me know > if it's something you can support? I hope you can and would think > this is something that aligns with your belief in the council's > responsibility over policy development. > > I'm under little impression the BC and IPC would sign on to this, so > perhaps the best available outcome is a letter detailing majority and > minority positions. What I believe should be avoided is a response > only from the SGs, as this would further portray the council as broken > and ineffective. > > Thanks for your attention. I'd like to get this to the list soon -- I > realize we're all quite busy, but if you could provide feedback soon I > would be appreciative. > > Happy holidays -- > > Mason > > > [DRAFT LETTER COPIED FROM ATTACHMENT BEGINS} > > Dear Fadi: > > Thank you for your e-mail of 5 December, in which you request the > advice of the GNSO Council on TMCH implementation. This letter is the > Council?s reply to your request. > > While our member constituencies and stakeholder groups will comment at > their discretion regarding the content of the so-called strawman, the > Council here addresses the issues identified in your e-mail, and as > you so invited, others in the strawman: > > Expansion of trademark rights in TLDs > The Council draws a distinction between the launch of new gTLDs, where > policy has been set and agreed to, and a longer-term discussion about > amended or additional rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), which would > apply to all gTLDs. > > The Council believes generally that expansion of trademark rights > beyond law is a matter of policy, as it is of impact to the full > community. The majority of the Council believes protection policies > for new gTLDs are sufficient and need not be revisited. If the > community seeks to augment existing RPMs, they are appropriately the > subjects of Council policy action. > > Indeed, ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker and other Board members set an > expectation in Toronto that new RPM proposals should have the > Council?s support to be considered now: > > "Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The > Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency (sic) > reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection > and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO and the Board > looks forward to receiving input on these suggestions from the GNSO. > So that is our plan, so to speak, which is we will continue to listen > and wait for this to come up. " > > http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-public-forum-18oct12-en.pdf, > at p.12. > > It is fair to say these proposals do not have the support of the > Council?s majority. > > In addition, in the context of ICANN?s goal to advance competition in > the domain name industry, the Council finds that RPM proposals, or > other measures that could impact the marketability of new gTLDs, would > deserve GNSO policy development to ensure applicability to all gTLDs, > new and existing. This is consistent with the NTIA?s recent letter to > ICANN, which states in part: > > ?We encourage ICANN to explore additional trademark protections across > all TLDs, existing and new, through community dialogues and > appropriate policy development processes in the coming year.? > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-04oct12-en.pdf > > > Extension of Claims 1 > The majority of the Council considers the community?s standing policy > agreement for a 60-day Claims 1 period settled, and finds no reason to > reconsider it. Were reconsideration warranted, a PDP would be required. > > The Council?s rationale is the Board?s policy determination of the > timing of trademark claims as ?60 days from launch.? In addition, the > presence of both sunrise and trademark claims is a further compromise, > as the Council voted unanimously to require either sunrise or claims, > but not both. > > With regard to Claims 1, staff?s determination that a timing extension > is appropriate is inconsistent with previous communications. In your > 19 September 2012 letter to the US Congress, you wrote (emphasis added): > > ?For the first round of new gTLDs, ICANN is not in a position to > unilaterally require today an extension of the 60-day minimum length > of the new trademark claims service. The 60-day period was reached > through a multi-year, extensive process with the ICANN community.? > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/chehade-to-leahy-et-al-19sep12-en > > The majority of the Council concurs with your message and believes the > current 60-day Claims 1 period is agreed-to policy and as such should > not be changed. > > Claims 2 > The Claims 2 proposal is a longer-term RPM with potentially > significant impacts and would be subject to a PDP, in order to explore > the complex issues therein. This advice is based on the following: > > 1. Claims 2 is a new RPM, not implementation of an agreed-to RPM. It > is fundamentally different from the 60- (or the proposed 90-) day > claims service. > > 2. Beyond this important distinction, there are many unanswered > questions about a Clams 2 process. Are potential registrants, > legitimately entitled to non-infringing registrations, unfairly > disenfranchised? How would payments be made and allocated? How do > registries and registrars adapt their technical systems to accept the > many more commands received over nine to ten additional months? Is > the burden as currently proposed (registries and registrars assume the > cost and risk to build these systems with no predictable method of > cost recovery) fair to all parties? What should the claims notice > say? (In this regard, the Council respectfully points out that Claims > 2 should not be characterized as ?more lightweight.?) The purpose of > the GNSO Council is to collaboratively answer these types of questions > before recommending policy. > > Scope of Trademark Claims > The Council?s majority believes your determination, as documented in > your updated blog posting, that an expansion of trademark claim scope > (beyond exact match) is a matter of policy, is correct. It is further > consistent with the following section of your letter to Congress: > > ?It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended > to be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator > of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections > offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name would > potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and > put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determination as to the > scope of particular rights. The principle that rights protections > ?should protect the existing rights of trademark owners, but neither > expand those rights nor create additional rights by trademark law? was > key to work of the Implementation Recommendation Team?? > > Consistent with this, the Limited Preventative Registration (LPR) > proposal, or any other blocking mechanism, also represents a change in > policy and should be a matter of Council policy business if it is to > be considered. > > Staff activity and input > While the Council appreciates staff?s perspective regarding > circumvention of GNSO procedures, regrettably, an attempt to > circumvent the GNSO Council is very much in evidence. The Council > further appreciates your determination to focus on implementation; the > Council expects however that implementation will be of agreed-to > issues, and not new proposals not subject to adequate community review > and input. > > [ENDS] > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0UzwAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq0d8IAI8kMxmhZl18i50IejOO2kNB > iVVYM9qS1tR7FhYitoXYu2+1pgbNvZW47wwyiWOVyNu6TL+txQ4AI5BggGH7sDmX > 3CMfm+o2sq/5U3LX8H+GTxbzLcUE7R1Jr686I57G5dPniB587Vzmc0MLhvEY1COV > 91paFzzEoLSRWQDwUz8EBcmj6RLUArL9sp006cJhUM41edo7odWplnwL+pnkXeW2 > jcbOOtvz/un+fawmjD12LpCOb79PMfFaANG89q5EpAIa6628QCzpR1/M4yQu4iEn > ONvCCi4aF4aiKG6VfgMoCelcQa1+fO52mIj2bpCRazA0DOLJn8ywES5pyITrzA4= > =wOp6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----