October 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations
by Zahid Jamil 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Today the 3 days of off line negotiations and reaching out to the ALAC and NCSG on the issue of the IRT Report and the RPMs were successful. 3 hours of discussion (with the help of the ALAC- Alan and Cheryl) on Monday with NCSG reps (Kathryn Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis) followed by discussions through yesterday were successful in providing background and a context to the BC position on the IRT Report. Initially on the Council list the NCSG had indicated and unwillingness of the IRT being available as a resource. Summary of points for discussion that were discussed were (subject to them being taken back to the NCSG): Welcome the IRT and other resources being available to the GNSO Working Group working on the Board's letter regarding the RPMs (ie. STI review team). At the session on Thursday (today) express the willingness that NCSG had for reaching out constructively to the GNSO community (language discussed included reaching common ground). The GNSO passed a Resolution today with the support of the NCSG stating: The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions that may arise; I believe that possibly a more integral part than the discussion with Kathy in achieving this was the efforts of members from other Constituency(s) that may have helped mediate this resolution through. In today's session on Trademark Protection and new gTLDs (transcript attached): Kathy responded positively and at the end of her first intervention stated: '....we in the NCUC want to work with you. We want to establish common ground, and we wish the best of luck for all of us in this expedited process.' She even went as far as saying in regards the IRT URS recommendation for Appeal: '.....and I have to say it, and I guess I'm on the record, the IRT kind of got this one right and let's go back to that.' This was met with equal good will by CSG members: J. Scott, now President of the IPC said: 'I worked with Kathy Kleiman, and we drafted the UDRP final version with Louis Touton and a group of other talented people, many of whom are here today................We just want to solve a problem. That's what we're here to do. We want to work with registries, registrars, NCUC. That's what we're here for. We're problem solvers. We want to solve the problem. Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working together in the near future. Zahid Jamil BC Councillor said: 'First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank Kathy for the NCUC's constructive invitation to work with goodwill. We look forward to the sentiment continuing in the GNSO. So thank you for that..........' With respect to several aspects of the IRT Solutions it seems that NCSG and BC may be able to find common ground. I am sure there must have been much discussion in the NCSG itself about taking these positions after discussing matters with the BC and other individuals. So Kudos to Kathy and Kostantino for achieving success for not letting down our discussions from Monday for which I have thanked them. Efforts of Alan and Cheryl to set up some of the atmosphere for the interaction also helped. Also in other private discussions this evening with some ALAC reps it seems that there may be even more common ground possible with the BC positions. This sentiment seems to have created an atmosphere which may enable some parties with divergent views reaching consensus on some aspects at least. I hope this interaction will also help BC, NCSG and ALAC collaborating on other issues in the future. Through private meetings tomorrow leading up to the STI session I hope this sentiment continues. Will report back after tomorrows STI meeting. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

8 11

FW: [gnso-sti] Brainstorming Notes
by Zahid Jamil 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

FYI Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 9:17 AM To: gnso-sti(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-sti] Brainstorming Notes Dear All, Please find attached the Brainstorming Notes developed during our meeting yesterday. Best Regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

GNSO Participation Study
by BC Secretariat 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Dear Members Please see below from Denise Michel. I'm having problems opening the attached Word document. If members have similar problems I'll ask Denise to repost Gary --------------------- Dear GNSO Community Members: Policy Staff has done a high level analysis of constituency participation and attendance in GNSO working groups using recorded data for 11 groups from the beginning of 2008 to early September 2009. We looked at 5 gTLD-related working groups and 6 GNSO improvements-related working groups underway during this period. The attached report and related spreadsheets is intended as an inquiry to encourage further community investigation and discussion about GNSO workload and prioritization of tasks, as well as future work processes and structures. It does not purport to be a scientific or rigorous statistical examination nor does it attempt to identify hypotheses about specific underlying causes. We hope you find it useful and welcome any questions. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP Policy

4 3

BC meeting summary Seoul
by BC Secretariat 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Dear Members Please find attached the notes of the BC meeting in Seoul Best wishes Gary

1 0

Registry/Registrar Separation
by Steve DelBianco 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

(for those of you not here in Seoul) Below is what I said (not on behalf of BC) today at the Public Forum, regarding Rr/Ry separation. I Listened to debate over separation. inconclusive (both sides passionate and articulate) > But I did learn about motivations for Registrars wanting to run Registries > > I learned about innovative methods for monetizing premium names. What I learned tells me ICANN should reset public expectations about benefits of new TLDs. > Let¹s start being more transparent about the way names will and won¹t be > available to the public. > > Let¹s limit disappointment when TLDs launch. > > And let¹s make it less likely that the review team on Competition , Consumer > Trust, and Choice will give ICANN a failing grade. For years, the Rhetoric of expectations has been: we need new TLDs to give registrants all those ³good names that are unavailable in current TLDs. That¹s the rhetoric. What¹s the reality? > Reality 1: new gTLD applicants will maximize profits on premium names, whether > by selling them at diff prices, or by having an affiliate park the domain with > advertising. That name is never going be available to a registrant that wants > to use it for content or commerce. > > Reality 2: will see Innovative ways to identify and control premium names at > launch, and then afterwards, when words and phrases suddenly acquire premium > value ( h1n1.whatever) There¹s Nothing illegal about that, and new Ry contracts allow uncapped and variable premium pricing. And you don¹t have to own a registrar to monetize your names I¹ve been educated about that. But let¹s stop kidding ourselves and the internet public about how new TLDs will let ordinary people register names they want but can¹t get today. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 2

GNSO Participation Study - pdf
by BC Secretariat 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Regarding my previous mail, please find attached the corrupted Word doc as a PDF file Gary

1 0

RE: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group
by Berry Cobb 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

CBUC, My mistake, PEDNR is a formal PDP, and not a Pre-PDP as I indicated below. My apologies for any confusion. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:16 To: 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' Subject: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group CBUC, Attached is the DRAFT Position Statement for CBUC relative to the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group. (PEDNR-WG). All comments and suggestions are welcome. With the PEDNR being a Pre-PDP, it is my understanding a formal vote by the CBUC will not occur on this position statement. Rather, it will be reserved for a final CBUC Position statement based on PEDNR outcomes and recommendations. Please advise if you have questions or comments. I will be sure to incorporate all comments and changes to this statement. It is my desire to have this statement returned to the PEDNR - WG by COB 11/6/2009. Thank you. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891

3 4

Re: [bc-gnso] Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Great stuff Zahid - well doine. > Today the 3 days of off line negotiations and reaching out to the ALAC and > NCSG on the issue of the IRT Report and the RPMs were successful. > > 3 hours of discussion (with the help of the ALAC- Alan and Cheryl) on > Monday > with NCSG reps (Kathryn Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis) followed by > discussions through yesterday were successful in providing background and > a > context to the BC position on the IRT Report. > > Initially on the Council list the NCSG had indicated and unwillingness of > the IRT being available as a resource. > > Summary of points for discussion that were discussed were (subject to them > being taken back to the NCSG): > > Welcome the IRT and other resources being available to the GNSO Working > Group working on the Board's letter regarding the RPMs (ie. STI review > team). > > At the session on Thursday (today) express the willingness that NCSG had > for > reaching out constructively to the GNSO community (language discussed > included reaching common ground). > > The GNSO passed a Resolution today with the support of the NCSG stating: > The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP > Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be > useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who > worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions > that may arise; > > I believe that possibly a more integral part than the discussion with > Kathy > in achieving this was the efforts of members from other Constituency(s) > that > may have helped mediate this resolution through. > > > In today's session on Trademark Protection and new gTLDs (transcript > attached): > > Kathy responded positively and at the end of her first intervention > stated: > > '....we in the NCUC want to work with you. We want to establish common > ground, and we wish the best of luck for all of us in this expedited > process.' > > She even went as far as saying in regards the IRT URS recommendation for > Appeal: > > '.....and I have to say it, and I guess I'm on the record, the IRT kind of > got this one right and let's go back to that.' > > This was met with equal good will by CSG members: > > J. Scott, now President of the IPC said: > > 'I worked with Kathy Kleiman, and we drafted the UDRP final version with > Louis Touton and a group of other talented people, many of whom are here > today................We just want to solve a problem. That's what we're > here to do. We want to work with registries, registrars, NCUC. That's > what > we're here for. We're problem solvers. We want to solve the problem. > Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working together in > the near future. > > Zahid Jamil BC Councillor said: > > 'First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank Kathy for the NCUC's > constructive invitation to work with goodwill. > We look forward to the sentiment continuing in the GNSO. So thank you for > that..........' > > With respect to several aspects of the IRT Solutions it seems that NCSG > and > BC may be able to find common ground. > > I am sure there must have been much discussion in the NCSG itself about > taking these positions after discussing matters with the BC and other > individuals. So Kudos to Kathy and Kostantino for achieving success for > not > letting down our discussions from Monday for which I have thanked them. > > Efforts of Alan and Cheryl to set up some of the atmosphere for the > interaction also helped. > > Also in other private discussions this evening with some ALAC reps it > seems > that there may be even more common ground possible with the BC positions. > > This sentiment seems to have created an atmosphere which may enable some > parties with divergent views reaching consensus on some aspects at least. > I > hope this interaction will also help BC, NCSG and ALAC collaborating on > other issues in the future. > > Through private meetings tomorrow leading up to the STI session I hope > this > sentiment continues. > > Will report back after tomorrows STI meeting. > > > > Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 21 5655026 > <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being > communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the > intended > recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this > message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may > contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, > and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client > privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of > any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or > storing > it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or > incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior > written > permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > >

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
by Phil Corwin 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Chinese restaurant. 37th floor Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: Scott M. McCormick <scott(a)mccormickict.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; Liz Williams <lizawilliams(a)mac.com>; Jim Baskin <james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 28 23:23:14 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Hey guys. Where's our lunch today? -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:54 PM To: HASSAN Ayesha Cc: Scott M. McCormick; Marilyn Cade; Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Thanks Ayesha > Dear colleagues, > > > > I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to > offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and > frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes > irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and > exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me: > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding: > > "According to the Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful > to approved positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are > required to support such positions" It seems logical to me that > Counselors "are required to support such positions" equates to voting > with the consensus and direction of the BC" > > > > Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is > helpful in someway. > > > > Best regards, > > Ayesha > > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf > Of Scott M. McCormick > Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 > To: Marilyn Cade > Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I support Jim's suggestion as well. > > > > In response to Marilyn's comments below, > > > > 1.) I move to remove the limit's on daily posts. If we are to be > effective in our coordination, I see a limit on posts as a hinderance. > I realize we have call-ins to accomplish tasks, but as I have seen in > the last couple months (of which I have become a BC member) with a limit > of 3/day or 10/month. How does anyone expect to accomplish anything in > a timely manner? I would suggest we move to change the wording to state > something as such: > > > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > 2.) I was not present at this mornings meeting. According to the > Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful to approved > positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are required to > support such positions" It seems logical to me that Counselors "are > required to support such positions" equates to voting with the consensus > and direction of the BC. Did I miss something? > > > > > > Scott M. McCormick > McCormick ICT International > mobile +1 443.691.2013 > scott(a)mccormickict.com > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > > > > > Actually, I'm on board with Jim's suggestion. I know that Sarah > Deutsch, his colleague had made several proposals for change, and > undoubtedly will want to ensure that they are all taken into account. > > > > Once we make changes, I'm skeptical that we will, in fact, have the time > or bandwidth to make further changes, so we need to get this right. > > > > On the needed additional changes, I find it unfortunate that we didn't > read on through the rest of the Charter, and do the final check to > ensure that stuff that has been controversial and objected to by several > members. Let me identify two problem areas that have been raised and I > have repeatedly asked to have two changes made and in writing. > > > > 1) remove the discussion on limits of number of posts. > > Explanation: the evidence of our need to work collaboratively, and in > real time, and to keep our remote members informed, we have all > collaborated on line to share information and to keep in touch. Every > member who has been helping to share information, including Mike R.; > Zahid; Marilyn and even Sarah, who isn't here can be 'sanctioned', or > even kicked off the mailing list according to that criteria/limitation > of only 3 per day/etc. > > > > I have asked repeatedly to have this changed. > > Thus, I consider this to be one of the things that should be changed. > It's a simple change. > > > > 2) the list management section needs to be cut out as well. Any > responsibility for an email list would belong in the :secretariat > service(s) which is addressed earlier. The IPC certainly took a VERY > high level approach without addressing this kind of detailed > intervention into the ability of the members to communicate. > > > > After what came out this morning in Council when one of our councilors > said that "according to the current BC Charter, councilors are not > required to vote as their constituency directs", I have one additional > change to the Charter. > > > > We need to add in a sentence that clearly states that the elected BC > Councilors are bound by the guidance of the BC membership. > > > > One more thing -- just an FYI for right now, but an important > consideration -- during the NomComm review and again in the Board > Review, there is a growing recognition of the need for recall > mechanisms. In fact, the ALAC is moving ahead with metrics for elected > reps, and even recall. > > > > Let's give serious consideration to adding that in, and getting this > charter right. CC: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > > > > From: lizawilliams(a)mac.com > To: james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Charter > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:05:51 +0000 > > Hi Jim > > > > I thought that we agreed (I asked Philip to clarify that at the end) > was that Philip would capture the few changes that were made during the > meeting; finalise version 20; send that to the list with a timetable of > moving towards a vote quite shortly, based on the timing included in the > charter itself. > > > > I urge us to move to a new structure soon so that we can stop talking > about process and get back to substantive policy work ASAP. > > > > Liz > > On 28 Oct 2009, at 04:01, Baskin, James F (Jim) wrote: > > > > Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off > discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we > still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final > vote. > > > > Jim Baskin > > Verizon > > > > > > > >

1 0

BC Charter
by Baskin, James F (Jim) 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final vote. Jim Baskin Verizon

8 9