June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Invite for Volunteers to Form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force
by Glen de Saint Géry June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Dear All, Please note that there is still time to join! http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-19may11-en.htm One of the recommendations of the ICANN Board Governance Committee was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups. The Operations Steering Committee developed recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted them to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. (See http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf.) On 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommendations by the Operations Steering Committee and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. On 28 April the GNSO Council directed the Operations Steering Committee to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit. The Operations Steering Committee determined that no changes were ! necessary. Thus, on 19 May the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to begin the process of seeking volunteers from the GNSO Council to form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force described in the recommendations as follows: "The GNSO Council should manage the development of the OTF [Outreach Task Force] through the creation of a Drafting Team to develop the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] Charter. The Charter shall include procedures for member recruitment, application, selection, terms and term limits. The Charter should also set goals for the completion of the membership selection process, establishment of a meeting schedule, and participation guidelines. The Charter should establish an initial term for the OTF [Outreach Task Force] of two years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] initiatives and, if deemed successful, the OTF's charter could be extended annually." This invitation is extended to all members of the GNSO Community. We urge you to forward to this to all members of the community who may be interested in participating. Please contact the GNSO Council Secretariat at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> if you are interested in joining the Drafting Team. Please contact Julie Hedlund at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> if you have any questions about the Outreach Recommendations. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Agenda for Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting Monday, 12:30-14:00 in Sophia
by Glen de Saint Géry June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Dear All, Please find the agenda attached and posted on the website at: http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24493 which can be directly viewed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Joint+ccNSO-GNSO+Co… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

WHOIS review team
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Hello All, I know the GNSO has some WHOIS studies underway. You may be interested in this request from the WHOIS Review team for a consumer research study on WHOIS. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Board workshop on Saturday
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Hello All, Just so there is no surprises, the Board is planning to spend an extra day at the end of this week, to chat about stuff that we haven't had time to discuss this week with new gTLDs, ATRT discussions etc during the week. We have a very active Board so assuming 21 Board members each talk for 5 mins on each topic it takes us 75 mins per topic. From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/workshop-25jun11-en.htm ICANN Board of Directors Workshop, 25 June 2011 (Not designated as an Official Board Meeting) 25 June 2011 Board Workshop to Prepare for the Future Given the change in Board leadership and related changes in Board committee assignments and the multiple challenges facing ICANN, the Board will take advantage of the presence of most of the new Board and hold an informal workshop following the close of the ICANN meeting. The primary focus of the workshop will be the challenges facing ICANN and the coordination of Board and management directions.

1 0

NCUC statement on "use" requirement for Sunrise & URS
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

The following is a formal statement of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) in relation to the "use" requirement within the Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse and the URS. As with our earlier statement on the URS, we would greatly appreciate it being forwarded to the rest of the Board as soon as possible. Thank you. "NCUC supports the Board's response to the GAC in relation to the "use" requirement in the Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse and, for similar reasons that we articulate here, the URS. We note that all "marks that constitute intellectual property" (which expands the scope of the Clearinghouse from earlier drafts of the Applicant Guidebook) are eligible for participation in the TM Clearinghouse and the TM Claims Service. A sunrise registration is a priority registration that privileges certain intellectual property owners. The Board's proposed use requirement is not particularly onerous, and needing to show a "specimen of current use" does not necessarily amount to the type of use that constitutes an actual use (rather than an "intent to use") in the course of trade under trademark law. Combined with a vague, broad and general expansion in the scope of marks that can now be in the TM Clearinghouse, removing the use requirement for sunrise would unnecessarily expand the risk that legitimate registrations could be blocked at the preliminary pre-launch stage and increase the possibility of abuse of the sunrise process while expanding the process rights of trademark owners. Similarly, the requirement of use (which, as we noted above, is neither particularly onerous nor equivalent to "actual use" under substantive trademark law) should be retained for the URS. Besides the expanded risks that we explain above, removing the use requirement from the URS process would undermine the "slam dunk" nature of the types of claims that the URS is intended to deal with. We therefore strongly urge the Board to retain the use requirement for participation in a sunrise process and the URS." Best regards, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

GNSO-ccNSO meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Councillors, As discussed today, please find attached the proposed agenda for our meeting with the ccNSO. Absent any further comments this afternoon, and as time is short on this, Glen please send this agenda to the ccNSO secretariat and Chair on my behalf this evening. Thanks, Stéphane

2 1

Friendly Amendment to IRTP-B Motion
by Tim Ruiz June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Based on recent discussions with the Council, IRTP-B WG members, and Staff I would like to offer a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion made by me and seconded by Jonathan: That the third bullet in Resolve G, which reads: "Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars to send an FOA to the Registrant or Admin Contact." be deleted from the motion. The reason being that this issue is dealt with in Resolve A item 2. Tim

2 1

Adrian's gameplan
by Adrian Kinderis June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

As I discussed in the Working Session today. The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them); - Stephane speaking directly to the Board - Katim's email and the issues of the JAS WG o Processes within the Council - The future of Cross Community Working Groups o Publishing of reports etc - The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its internal processes and representation o Multi stakeholder make up o Differing views/ differing It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses of action in order to promote resolution. Adrian Kinderis

11 14

NCUC statement on the URS
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

The following is a formal statement from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. We would greatly appreciate it if ICANN staff or the GNSO representatives on the Board could ensure that it is forwarded to the rest of the Board as soon as possible. Thank you. "The NCUC strongly urges the ICANN Board to retain the current proposed standard of proof in relation to the URS. Not only is the standard consistent with the recommendations made by the IRT and STI, which represents community consensus on this particular point, lowering the standard to that being requested by the GAC would completely undermine the purpose of the URS, which is to expedite suspension of domains in "slam dunk" cases without abrogating the rights of applicants to due process. Allowing an expedited suspension on the basis merely of a "preponderance of the evidence" would go against this fundamental principle, and disrupt registrants' reliance on domain stability. Changing the evidentiary standard would also potentially expand the URS, undoing the safeguards that were negotiated and published in the Guidebook and raising the very real possibility of abuse of the URS. The URS is not intended to replace the UDRP, and as such one of the critical differences between the two - as to the standard of proof - must be retained." Best regards, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

RE: [council] UDRP issues report discussion
by Tim Ruiz June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Not ignoring this request Kristina, we just want to confirm one way or the other. But I will say that the RySG councilors do not speak for the RrSG and I don't think that is what Jeff intended. I believe he was referencing discussions we have had in our House, certainly not an official position. Again, I will try to confirm an actual position. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To point out the obvious: If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution. The other one is to amend the RAA accordingly. Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as coming out of the registry-registrar meeting. I'd be interested in getting confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization is accurate. Thanks. K

3 2