RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others"
Thank you, Chuck, for the clarification. I do not agree the working group should make recommendations on the fundamental underlying policy questions. I understood its purpose to be an analysis of established and alternative mechanisms. If your edits were not meant to indicate that protection mechanisms are to be optional, then we should make that clear, also in the interest of achieving a result within the very limited time available. One way forward for the beginning of the purpose section - drawing on the wording of the material Bruce circulated earlier - may be: "In a new round of proposals for new TLD registries, applicants will be asked to propose a number of procedures around the launch of that TLD. One issue to consider are practices that attempt to minimize abusive registration activities that affect the legal rights of others. Relevant practices include measures to discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights and minimize abusive registrations. At present, a number of TLD registries, and notably some sTLD registries, are required to implement safeguards against allowing unqualified registration and to ensure compliance with ICANN policies designed to protect rights of others. (...)" -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 01 February 2007 17:56 To: Ute Decker; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Ute, The point is that it should be up to the WG to make recommendations. The SoW should not make the recommendations for them. We are not at a point where we are approving anything yet so no objection is necessary. That is why we are forming the WG. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:57 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" In response to Chuck's edits: The additional section on the formation of the working group is very helpful as a basis for discussion on the call, thanks (the timelines are more than ambitious though). The edits to the 'Suggested Outline of Woking Group Work Plan' section all seem helpful. However, the suggested changes to the 'proposed purpose' section are problematic. E.g., Chuck's edits would include: "This could include recommendations for practices that attempt to minimize abusive registration activities that affect the legal rights o others. That could include measures to discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights and minimize abusive registrations." (1st para, sentences 2 &3). We understand these two sentences to mean that the adoption by new gTLD/sTLD registries of policies or mechanisms to prevent abusive registrations should be optional. If that is correct, we object. A requirement for mechanisms to protect the rights of others (including preventive mechanisms) against abusive registrations is essential. See, for example, Terms of Reference 2, Paragraph 13, GNSO Initial Report, Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, July 2006 calling for the introduction of policies to "address domain name registration violations", as well as the message circulated by Bruce just a few weeks ago (and attached again). If the edits serve another purpose (e.g. reflect the status of the PDP Dec05 work) this should be clarified in a way that carries forward and does not distract from the understanding that protection against abusive registrations will be a requirement for new TLDs. Apologies that I will not be able to join the call tonight. I take it that thankfully Kristina will be on for the IPC. Best wishes Ute -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 01 February 2007 14:06 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Importance: High Note that I mistakenly sent this to the RN-WG list instead of the Council. Please accept my apologies; I wanted to send it out sooner. I hope there is time to review it before today's meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:58 PM To: RN-WG Mailing List (gnso-rn-wg@icann.org) Subject: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Importance: High I would like to first of all thank Kristina and Ute for their efforts in revising the outline of the SoW for the proposed Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others". I appreciate the work they did to incorporate the edits that several of us suggested. The attached document contains some edits that some of us from the RyC recommend be made before the Council takes action on the SoW in our meeting tomorrow. Note that the edits are highlighted using the Word tracking function. I will be happy to answer questions about the suggested edits on this list prior to the meeting and in our meeting tomorrow. Please note that I added at the end of the document several paragraphs from the RN-WG approved SoW. My intent in doing this was to hopefully help us as the Council be able to approve a document tomorrow that will facilitate a quick startup of the WG. In particular, I added the paragraphs relating to the following: Formation of the Working Group; Voting; Membership; Working Timeline. Note that the Membership paragraphs include language about an interim chair and permanent chair. Except for the timeline, I simply cut and pasted the text from the RN-WG; for the timeline, I changed the language to correspond to what I think to be the targets that may be desired by the Council. Chuck
I didn't understand your message until after the Council call Ute. As I said in the Council meeting, I think the disconnect is that you are thinking that there is already a policy in this regard. I do not believe that is the case as Bruce explained in the meeting. Our edits weren't intended to imply that protection mechanisms should be optional, required or forbidden. It is up to the WG to study the issues and possible solutions and hopefully reach agreement on some recommendations for next steps forward. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:13 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Thank you, Chuck, for the clarification. I do not agree the working group should make recommendations on the fundamental underlying policy questions. I understood its purpose to be an analysis of established and alternative mechanisms. If your edits were not meant to indicate that protection mechanisms are to be optional, then we should make that clear, also in the interest of achieving a result within the very limited time available. One way forward for the beginning of the purpose section - drawing on the wording of the material Bruce circulated earlier - may be: "In a new round of proposals for new TLD registries, applicants will be asked to propose a number of procedures around the launch of that TLD. One issue to consider are practices that attempt to minimize abusive registration activities that affect the legal rights of others. Relevant practices include measures to discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights and minimize abusive registrations. At present, a number of TLD registries, and notably some sTLD registries, are required to implement safeguards against allowing unqualified registration and to ensure compliance with ICANN policies designed to protect rights of others. (...)" -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 01 February 2007 17:56 To: Ute Decker; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Ute, The point is that it should be up to the WG to make recommendations. The SoW should not make the recommendations for them. We are not at a point where we are approving anything yet so no objection is necessary. That is why we are forming the WG. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:57 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" In response to Chuck's edits: The additional section on the formation of the working group is very helpful as a basis for discussion on the call, thanks (the timelines are more than ambitious though). The edits to the 'Suggested Outline of Woking Group Work Plan' section all seem helpful. However, the suggested changes to the 'proposed purpose' section are problematic. E.g., Chuck's edits would include: "This could include recommendations for practices that attempt to minimize abusive registration activities that affect the legal rights o others. That could include measures to discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights and minimize abusive registrations." (1st para, sentences 2 &3). We understand these two sentences to mean that the adoption by new gTLD/sTLD registries of policies or mechanisms to prevent abusive registrations should be optional. If that is correct, we object. A requirement for mechanisms to protect the rights of others (including preventive mechanisms) against abusive registrations is essential. See, for example, Terms of Reference 2, Paragraph 13, GNSO Initial Report, Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, July 2006 calling for the introduction of policies to "address domain name registration violations", as well as the message circulated by Bruce just a few weeks ago (and attached again). If the edits serve another purpose (e.g. reflect the status of the PDP Dec05 work) this should be clarified in a way that carries forward and does not distract from the understanding that protection against abusive registrations will be a requirement for new TLDs. Apologies that I will not be able to join the call tonight. I take it that thankfully Kristina will be on for the IPC. Best wishes Ute -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 01 February 2007 14:06 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Importance: High Note that I mistakenly sent this to the RN-WG list instead of the Council. Please accept my apologies; I wanted to send it out sooner. I hope there is time to review it before today's meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:58 PM To: RN-WG Mailing List (gnso-rn-wg@icann.org) Subject: Suggested edits for the SoW for the Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" Importance: High I would like to first of all thank Kristina and Ute for their efforts in revising the outline of the SoW for the proposed Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others". I appreciate the work they did to incorporate the edits that several of us suggested. The attached document contains some edits that some of us from the RyC recommend be made before the Council takes action on the SoW in our meeting tomorrow. Note that the edits are highlighted using the Word tracking function. I will be happy to answer questions about the suggested edits on this list prior to the meeting and in our meeting tomorrow. Please note that I added at the end of the document several paragraphs from the RN-WG approved SoW. My intent in doing this was to hopefully help us as the Council be able to approve a document tomorrow that will facilitate a quick startup of the WG. In particular, I added the paragraphs relating to the following: Formation of the Working Group; Voting; Membership; Working Timeline. Note that the Membership paragraphs include language about an interim chair and permanent chair. Except for the timeline, I simply cut and pasted the text from the RN-WG; for the timeline, I changed the language to correspond to what I think to be the targets that may be desired by the Council. Chuck
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Ute Decker