Summary of GAC Communique advice on IGO & Red Cross protections; mentions of GNSO work on Whois
Dear Council members, We thought you may find a summary of the GAC's Los Angeles communique issued this morning helpful, specifically in relation to references to the issue of IGO & Red Cross protections as well as to Whois policy work. On IGOs having preventative protection via the TMCH notices: The GAC clarifies that the so-called ³claims notice² process should not just be the post-registration Notice of Registered Name (NORN) from the TMCH, but also the pre-registration claims notice issued to the prospective registrant. This should be in two languages, at no cost to the IGOs and last for the duration of the TMCH (in this case the GAC uses the word ³perpetuity²). On IGOs and curative rights: The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement by providing government¹s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing. On Red Cross protections: The GAC welcomes the latest NGPC resolution on interim protections for the 189 Red Cross national society names and urges the Board and ³all relevant parties² to work out remaining issues. On Whois policy work: The GAC has requested a Road Map from ICANN on timelines for and linkages between various tracks of Whois work, including specifically Privacy/Proxy Accreditation, Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information, implementation of thick Whois and Whois Conflicts with National Laws procedures. The Communique also discusses the GAC¹s reaction to the NGPC response on Category 1 & 2 safeguards, the issue of 2-character domain names at the second level and the RSEP requests submitted recently, and the GAC¹s intention to work inter sessionally to address human rights and other legal considerations. The full Communique is here: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20C ommunique_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413479079702&api=v2 We hope this brief summary of some of the points relevant to current GNSO work is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thank you Mary. Very helpful! Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower<x-apple-data-detectors://0> - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118<x-apple-data-detectors://1/0> p / (202) 625-3562<tel:(202)%20625-3562> f / (202) 339-8244<tel:(202)%20339-8244> 575 Madison Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://2> / New York, NY 10022-2585<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> p / (212) 940.6762<tel:(212)%20940.6762> f / (212) 894.5585<tel:(212)%20894.5585> brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> /www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council members, We thought you may find a summary of the GAC's Los Angeles communique issued this morning helpful, specifically in relation to references to the issue of IGO & Red Cross protections as well as to Whois policy work. On IGOs having preventative protection via the TMCH notices: The GAC clarifies that the so-called "claims notice" process should not just be the post-registration Notice of Registered Name (NORN) from the TMCH, but also the pre-registration claims notice issued to the prospective registrant. This should be in two languages, at no cost to the IGOs and last for the duration of the TMCH (in this case the GAC uses the word "perpetuity"). On IGOs and curative rights: The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement - by providing government's views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing. On Red Cross protections: The GAC welcomes the latest NGPC resolution on interim protections for the 189 Red Cross national society names and urges the Board and "all relevant parties" to work out remaining issues. On Whois policy work: The GAC has requested a Road Map from ICANN on timelines for and linkages between various tracks of Whois work, including specifically Privacy/Proxy Accreditation, Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information, implementation of thick Whois and Whois Conflicts with National Laws procedures. The Communique also discusses the GAC's reaction to the NGPC response on Category 1 & 2 safeguards, the issue of 2-character domain names at the second level and the RSEP requests submitted recently, and the GAC's intention to work inter sessionally to address human rights and other legal considerations. The full Communique is here: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20C... We hope this brief summary of some of the points relevant to current GNSO work is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================
I should also note that the GAC has opined on the work of the GNSO on new gTLDs, with this: "The review processes should be conducted and finalised before policy for the further gTLD rounds is developed and should include community-‐wide engagement on the issues of 6 communication to and access by developing countries and regions, and all aspects of the framework for community-‐based gTLDs." This is directly relevant to the work of the new gTLD discussion group. Note that they used the word “developed” and not “begun,” so I read this to say that we can begin our work, so long as we do not establish policy until that policy can take account of the reports from the other review processes. My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board can decide what to do with it. I don’t think we will need to reach that kind of confrontation, however, as I expect that the other review processes will complete well before the end of any PDP process that we initiate next year. Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@nic.sexy
My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board can decide what to do with it. And if recent history is any judge, the Board will send our work back to us unless/until it aligns with the GAC initial position. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Bret Fausett <bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>> wrote: I should also note that the GAC has opined on the work of the GNSO on new gTLDs, with this: "The review processes should be conducted and finalised before policy for the further gTLD rounds is developed and should include community-?wide engagement on the issues of 6 communication to and access by developing countries and regions, and all aspects of the framework for community-?based gTLDs." This is directly relevant to the work of the new gTLD discussion group. Note that they used the word "developed" and not "begun," so I read this to say that we can begin our work, so long as we do not establish policy until that policy can take account of the reports from the other review processes. My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board can decide what to do with it. I don't think we will need to reach that kind of confrontation, however, as I expect that the other review processes will complete well before the end of any PDP process that we initiate next year. Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 * Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) * 310-985-1351 (M) * bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>
On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:05 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
On IGOs and curative rights: The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement – by providing government’s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing.
Without rationale or explicitly suggesting an alternative, this advice is pretty much useless. Bret said:
My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board can decide what to do with it
I am in full agreement. We can offer the GAC useful ways to contribute, but we can't make them use them. If some members of the GAC want to communicate only via one sentence lines in the GAC communique, that is like trying to have a conversation with someone who will communicate only by putting up billboards. David
David -- I get the frustration -- if you'll permit me my POV, we should consider the possibility the GAC may be holding off on specific advice in favor of PDP development, which is still in its early stage. The GAC also isn't (at least yet) functionally prepared to contribute as specifically as we might like. Hopefully this is an acknowledgement that the current PDP is going in the right direction. For now, let's take the GAC's advice as it is. I intend to use the liaison role to update the GAC on PDP progress -- they may very well have something more specific to continue outside of formal advice as we go forward. Mason On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:19 PM, David Cake wrote:
On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:05 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
On IGOs and curative rights: The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement – by providing government’s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing.
Without rationale or explicitly suggesting an alternative, this advice is pretty much useless.
Bret said:
My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board can decide what to do with it
I am in full agreement. We can offer the GAC useful ways to contribute, but we can't make them use them. If some members of the GAC want to communicate only via one sentence lines in the GAC communique, that is like trying to have a conversation with someone who will communicate only by putting up billboards.
David
Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555
Dear Former Colleagues of the GNSO Council, As to IGO's and curative rights, I had a meeting this morning with WIPO (representing IGO) and got the clear input that they want to see a separate dispute resolution system for IGO's (and Red Cross) only. They do not want to open up URS and/or UDRP for changes. Our WG will get continous informal feedback's from IGO's (although they do not want to officially be members of the WG) by informal e-mail discussion, so I hope that we can have a clear view of their position/s at an early stage. Best,Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 16 oktober 2014, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> skrev:
Dear Council members,
We thought you may find a summary of the GAC's Los Angeles communique issued this morning helpful, specifically in relation to references to the issue of IGO & Red Cross protections as well as to Whois policy work.
On IGOs having preventative protection via the TMCH notices: The GAC clarifies that the so-called “claims notice” process should not just be the post-registration Notice of Registered Name (NORN) from the TMCH, but also the pre-registration claims notice issued to the prospective registrant. This should be in two languages, at no cost to the IGOs and last for the duration of the TMCH (in this case the GAC uses the word “perpetuity”).
On IGOs and curative rights: The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement – by providing government’s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one thing.
On Red Cross protections: The GAC welcomes the latest NGPC resolution on interim protections for the 189 Red Cross national society names and urges the Board and “all relevant parties” to work out remaining issues.
On Whois policy work: The GAC has requested a Road Map from ICANN on timelines for and linkages between various tracks of Whois work, including specifically Privacy/Proxy Accreditation, Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information, implementation of thick Whois and Whois Conflicts with National Laws procedures.
The Communique also discusses the GAC’s reaction to the NGPC response on Category 1 & 2 safeguards, the issue of 2-character domain names at the second level and the RSEP requests submitted recently, and the GAC’s intention to work inter sessionally to address human rights and other legal considerations.
The full Communique is here: <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20C...>
We hope this brief summary of some of the points relevant to current GNSO work is helpful.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
participants (7)
-
Bret Fausett -
David Cake -
James M. Bladel -
Mary Wong -
Mason Cole -
Petter Rindforth -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.