Thanks, I share Volker's concerns. On 10/01/2013 06:16 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
We have a full agenda developing for the 10 October 2013.
It will be helpful to have other comments on this along the lines of:
1. Is this an issue for the Council?
Yes
2. If so:
a. Do you have similarly felt or related / connected concerns?
Yes
b. Is this a unusual / unique / a precedent?
c. What should the Council be doing about it?
The draft should treat all constituencies equally -- all should be given the same level of reference and communications support. --Wendy
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net] Sent: 01 October 2013 09:33 To: Marika Konings Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document
Hi Marika,
thank you for that clarification. While this relieves part of my concern, I still feel that "baking" a single constituency into such a process and handing out special benefits is not the proper procedure for a multi-stakeholder organization, even if it is an opt-in process for the applicant.
Best,
Volker
Dear All,
Please find below a response from Cyrus Namazi in relation to the paragraph referred to by Volker.
Best regards,
Marika
In response to community input, the TMCH Requirements were revised to allow registry operators the ability to submit applications to conduct launch programs. In response to the large number of Geo TLDs who voiced similar concerns, the IPC publicly stated that it would be willing to work with Geo TLDs to develop mutually acceptable language for Geo TLD launch programs. We viewed this proposal as a way for community members to work collectively to propose to ICANN a possible solution for an issue specifically affecting intellectual property rights-holders and Geo TLDs. Any such proposal will be subject to ICANN's review and ICANN has expressly stated that any such proposal may be subject to public comment in which other interested community members may participate. This is captured in Section 4.5.3.
As an alternative, applicants can unilaterally apply for a program exemption under another provision of the requirements (Section 4.5.2). IPC was added to facilitate the discussion; not a condition to that requirement.
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: Monday 30 September 2013 19:03 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] TMCH RPM Requirements draft document
Dear fellow councillors,
in the last week ICANN has released a final draft version of the TMCH RPM Requirements, which contains in section 4.5.3 a paragraph that I find to be questionable:
4.5.3If registry operators that indicated in their applications for their TLDs that their TLD would be a geographic name (“Geo TLDs”) and representatives of the Intellectual Property Constituency recommend to ICANN the creation of a registration program (...)
Further, stakeholder groups and constituencies may change over time, so referencing one in such a process description may cause problems down the line.
I feel this topic needs to be raised on the council level as this is only the most recent example of ICANN staff acting unilaterally in favoring one interest over others.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/