Thanks Avri.
Thanks also to Olof for the redline document of Nov. 30,
showing differences between the proposed DRP and the
existing UDRP.
I am not convinced that we need a PDP scoped so
broadly, with a Task Force,
and would prefer to limit the scope up front. I would much prefer to frame
this PDP as proposed, limited amendments to the UDRP,
to address IGO
concerns -- rather than an entire new policy for such
a small set of names.
I think it would be far less controversial and easier
to implement if we
produce a set of amendments which can meet the
concerns of IGOs, rather than
an entirely new policy for IGO names. I also think it is much more
important to devote substantial time to amending the
URDP to make it more
effective for ALL rights owners, asap in the New
Year, than to focus so much
effort on the concerns of relatively few IGOs.
So, I would prefer to see Staff provide another
document similar to Olof's
redline, but showing recommended amendments to the
existing UDRP, rather
than a whole new policy. And then we should proceed with a more
limited
PDP.
Accordingly, I propose a different motion re IGO DRP, as follows:
Whereas:
- The Issues Report for IGO
has been released and discussed
- and in response to a GNSO Council resolution the
ICANN Staff has produced
a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution
procedure
- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to
postpone the vote on
commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC
prepared a proposal for a
revised IGO DRP
Resolves:
- The GNSO initiates a PDP to discuss amendments to
the UDRP which would
enable IGOs to pursue domain names referring to IGO
names via the UDRP and,
in the event of an unfavorable decision by a UDRP
panel, to challenge that
decision via a new appeal process to be added to the
UDRP and which shall be
limited to disputes regarding IGO names.
- As initial material for the PDP, the following will
be used:
- the Issues
report prepared by the staff
- the DRP
proposal prepared by the staff
- the
revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
- a new
document to be prepared by Staff no later than January 12, 2008,
showing proposed amendments to the UDRP based upon
the IPC's Nov.
28th
proposal, rather than an entirely new DRP
proposal
- Staff will request Constituency representatives by
January 12, 2008, who
shall meet and confer in order to recommend to
Council, no later than
January 26, 2008, whether or not a Task Force is
needed for this PDP.
At that point, Council can decide to accept that
recommendation, or not, but
the PDP would continue down one of the two paths in
the Bylaws (Task Force,
or Constituency Impact Statements).
Also I am not clear about the proposed appeal process
for IGOs, which I
thought was the fundamental reason they wanted
changes to the UDRP. Seems
there would need to be a further arbitration
agreement added to the
Registration Agreement, that binds registrants to a
further arbitration in
the event of an IGO disputing a UDRP decision. The IPC's revised proposal
says that any 'arbitral tribunal' with appropriate
jurisdiction can hear an
IGO's appeal, but isn't the only/best way for an
arbitral tribunal to get
jurisdiction over a registrant via the Registration
Agreement? And doesn't
that raise other questions about what arbitration
providers and processes
should be named in the contract?
I am also curious why we are not considering a
different approach to help
out IGOs, much like ICANN protects itself and related
organizations via the
Reserved Names list. It seems rather easy for ICANN to add the
Paris
Convention 6ter list as Reserved Names in
newTLDs. Of course that doesn't
help IGOs with their concerns re existing TLDs, and
so we still may need
UDRP modifications, but seems to me at least worth
consideration. Generally
I do not see why IGO names should be treated
differently than ICANN-related
names, so perhaps we should also take ICANN-related
names off the Reserved
Names list, and make them subject to the new
IGO-amended UDRP.
Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Proposed motions for IGO DRP
Hi,
We have the vote on creating a PDP on the IGO DRP n
the agnda for this
week's meeting.
the following are the proposed motions on this
subject.
they can be found in the motins page of docs.google.com).
thanks
a.
-- Motion 1 on IGO-DRP:
Whereas:
- The Issues report for IGO
) has been
released and discussed
- and in response to a council resolution the staff
has produced a
proposal for an IGO dispute resolution
procedure
v2-28sep07.pdf)
- and subsequent
to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote
on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC
prepared a
proposal for a revised IGO DRP
(insert
pointer)
Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the
creation on a PDP
on IGO dispute Resolution Procedures
-- Motion 2 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of Motion 1 on
IGO-DRP
Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on
IGO-Dispute
Resolution mechanism, a Task Force will be created
according to the By-
laws, section 5 of Annex A of the GNSO Policy
Development Process. As
initial material for the PDP, the following will be
used:
- the Issues
report prepared by the staff
- the DRP
proposal prepared by the staff
- the
revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC
-- Motion 3 on IGO-DRP contingent on the success of
Motion 1 on IGO-DRP
Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on
IGO-Dispute
Resolution mechanism, and whereas the holiday season
is rapidly
approaching, the schedule will be shifted out 2 weeks indicating that
the requisite deadline for appointment of
constituency representatives
will be delayed until Jan 12 2008.