IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
All, Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting. Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report. However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions. Thanks, Jonathan
The motions have been posted on page : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: mardi 27 mai 2014 00:55 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council Importance: High All, Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting. Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report. However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions. Thanks, Jonathan
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions. As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call. Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hi, Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report? Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it. As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it. So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point. I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. This makes it critical to understand the full scope. Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope. Thanks avri On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that. Best, Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hello Avri and everyone, Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections. Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested. (Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.) FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference. I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions. Thanks and cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hi, Thanks. I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it. I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables. One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either: - there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter. So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality. thanks avri On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Good points Avri. I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request. If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council Hi, Thanks. I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it. I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables. One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either: - there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter. So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality. thanks avri On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Jonathan, I do not object! Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 16:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Good points Avri.
I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi,
Thanks.
I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables.
One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either:
- there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality.
thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Building on this discussion, I have a more basic question: Does it make sense to proceed with this Issues Report/PDP in light of the outstanding work to be done w.r.t the GAC and acronyms? Are we assuming that the outcome of those talks (which, if I’m not mistaken, haven’t occurred yet) could be another Issues Report/PDP, that is interdependent with this one? We are seeing interdependencies crop up in the IRTP series of PDPs (A-D), and from that experience, I prefer waiting until all issues & questions are contained in a single PDP charter, rather than break them up. Apologies if I’m missing something here... Thanks― J. On 6/5/14, 7:31 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Jonathan, I do not object!
Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 16:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Good points Avri.
I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi,
Thanks.
I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables.
One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either:
- there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality.
thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
> All, > > > > Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council > meeting. > > > > Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas > Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation > for the Issue Report. > > > > However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to > propose the motions. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jonathan > > <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion > for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hi James, it is correct that the Board is still considering some of the recommendations. However, the Council has accepted a recommendation that we should initiate a PDP on this topic. I think we should now implement what we have resolved earlier on. While I am all for efficiency, I think that our work should be independent from potential Board action at this stage so that the Council is seen to be translating its resolution into action in a timely fashion. I hope you agree with this. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 17:00 schrieb James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>:
Building on this discussion, I have a more basic question:
Does it make sense to proceed with this Issues Report/PDP in light of the outstanding work to be done w.r.t the GAC and acronyms? Are we assuming that the outcome of those talks (which, if I’m not mistaken, haven’t occurred yet) could be another Issues Report/PDP, that is interdependent with this one?
We are seeing interdependencies crop up in the IRTP series of PDPs (A-D), and from that experience, I prefer waiting until all issues & questions are contained in a single PDP charter, rather than break them up.
Apologies if I’m missing something here...
Thanks―
J.
On 6/5/14, 7:31 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Jonathan, I do not object!
Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 16:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Good points Avri.
I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi,
Thanks.
I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables.
One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either:
- there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality.
thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote: > All, > Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later > today. I herewith second the motions. > > As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would > very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there > might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will > enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking > ready prior or in the call. > > Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation > we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this > very PDP should be conducted. > > Thanks and kind regards, > Thomas > > > Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson > <jrobinson@afilias.info > <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>: > >> All, >> >> >> >> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council >> meeting. >> >> >> >> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas >> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation >> for the Issue Report. >> >> >> >> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to >> propose the motions. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion >> for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc> >
Could someone confirm the exact language that needs to be added so that we can update the motion accordingly? Thanks, Marika On 05/06/14 16:29, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Good points Avri.
I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi,
Thanks.
I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables.
One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either:
- there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality.
thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
All,
Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report.
However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions.
Thanks,
Jonathan
<Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
Hi, How about replace:
2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report, which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014.
with 2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter <file name here>. This is based on the charter that was appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issues Report which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. avri On 05-Jun-14 17:35, Marika Konings wrote:
Could someone confirm the exact language that needs to be added so that we can update the motion accordingly?
Thanks,
Marika
On 05/06/14 16:29, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Good points Avri.
I have no objection to the charter motion being amended as you request.
If Thomas, in his capacity as seconder does not object, that will be OK.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 05 June 2014 14:34 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi,
Thanks.
I knew it was in there, and I was just missing it.
I was also pretty sure the acronyms were included for consideration but could not find the quotables.
One point, while I support the inclusion of draft charters in the issues report, in fact think I took part in making the recommendation, I did not expect that either:
- there were the final charters - that they would not be separated from the issues report to be free standing and open to edits, if necessary. A final issue report is not amendable by the council, yet a charter ought to be. These charter offerings in the issues report were supposed to suggestions and open for change. this is part of the need to balance the convenience of a staff produced charter and possible restrictions of a staff produced charter.
So thanks for separating it into a separating document. If possible I would like to ask that this be made a general practice before the next vote for charter approval and that it be referenced specifically in the motion. If possible I would like to ask that the charter motion be amended for this technicality.
thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 15:02, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Avri and everyone,
Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections.
Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and ³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs should be requested.
(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board on 30 April.)
FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this email for your reference.
I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions.
Thanks and cheers Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that.
Best, Thomas
Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found as an annex to the final issues report?
Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it.
As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I am missed it, but I missed it.
So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be ready to vote at this point.
I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do
so.
This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
Thanks
avri
On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later today. I herewith second the motions.
As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the call.
Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very PDP should be conducted.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:
> All, > > > > Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next > council meeting. > > > > Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you > from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed > the recommendation for the Issue Report. > > > > However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have > decided to propose the motions. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jonathan > > <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May > 2014.docx><Motion for IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter > Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Glen de Saint Géry -
James M. Bladel -
Jonathan Robinson -
Marika Konings -
Mary Wong -
Thomas Rickert