Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs] Dear WG members, Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the ³small group² meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC¹s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the ³small group² process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work. With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO¹s initial policy recommendations on so-called ³preventative² protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the ³small group² and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call. We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible. Best regards, Petter and Phil
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate. Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards, Petter and Phil
Paul: I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion. But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul@law.es ZIMBRA [mailto:paul@law.es] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:16 AM To: Phil Corwin; petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil) Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate. Paul Keating On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: [Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs] Dear WG members, Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work. With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call. We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible. Best regards, Petter and Phil ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
Me too, thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
*[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]*
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Mike: As I previously replied to Paul, I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion. But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter. Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning’s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any “comprehensive solution” on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues. Let’s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question. Finally, in advance of the call – and we are awaiting word on when that will take place – it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM To: Paul@law.es ZIMBRA Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil) Me too, thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate. Paul Keating On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: [Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs] Dear WG members, Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work. With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call. We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible. Best regards, Petter and Phil _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation. OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'. The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning’s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any “comprehensive solution” on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let’s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call – and we are awaiting word on when that will take place – it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM *To:* Paul@law.es ZIMBRA *Cc:* Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
*[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]*
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections*, *as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.
OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.
The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning’s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any “comprehensive solution” on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let’s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call – and we are awaiting word on when that will take place – it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM *To:* Paul@law.es ZIMBRA *Cc:* Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
*[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]*
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections*, *as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Mary/Steve: Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible? Thanks, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil) Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation. OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'. The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Mike: As I previously replied to Paul, I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion. But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter. Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning’s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any “comprehensive solution” on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues. Let’s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question. Finally, in advance of the call – and we are awaiting word on when that will take place – it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil) Me too, thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate. Paul Keating On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: [Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs] Dear WG members, Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work. With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call. We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible. Best regards, Petter and Phil _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
They should make a transcript, too, just like our normal conference calls. It's much easier/faster to review and reference a written transcript. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mary/Steve:
Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible?
Thanks, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.
OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.
The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don’t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning’s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any “comprehensive solution” on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let’s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call – and we are awaiting word on when that will take place – it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM To: Paul@law.es ZIMBRA Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the “small group” meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the “small group” process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO’s initial policy recommendations on so-called “preventative” protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the “small group” and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hello again everyone, As the ³small group² isn¹t a GNSO Working Group or Cross-Community Working Group, the meeting was not recorded or transcribed in the same way as we would do for GNSO WG/CWGs. I expect that the status of the proposal will be one of the major items to be discussed on the call between Phil, Petter, Mason, Chris Disspain and Thomas Schneider. Staff is trying to confirm some possible dates for the call, and I hope we will be able to find mutually agreeable times in short order. We will of course be happy to work with Phil, Petter and Mason to put together a report for this WG following the call. It may be worth noting that the IGOs, NGPC and GAC do not intend the updated proposal to be a directive to the GNSO, as they have each expressly acknowledged the role of the GNSO in developing gTLD policy. This was in fact a topic of discussion among the GNSO Council, the GAC and the Board some time ago. Additionally, the NGPC¹s original proposal - and the NGPC-GAC dialogue - pre-dated the formation of our WG and deals with broader issues than the scope of our Charter (i.e. issues concerning Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and claims notice protections for IGO acronyms). There are also other differences between the focus of the NGPC-GAC discussions being conducted through the ³small group² and the two GNSO PDPs (including this one), primarily, the focus of the former on the New gTLD Program whereas the scope of the GNSO work covers both legacy and new gTLDs. This point was specifically noted during the GNSO Council¹s discussion with Chris Disspain over extending TMCH and claims notice protection for IGO acronyms last September. As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its work in developing its consensus recommendations. I apologize if some of these points have been made previously, but I thought it helpful to refer to them again here, especially for those WG members who may not have followed the history of the topic of IGO protections closely. As mentioned in another email, staff is also continuing to contact those experts whose names have been put forward, to find out their availability, interest and rates. Our thanks go to those WG members, especially Jim Bikoff, who have been very helpful in this regards. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 18:58 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
They should make a transcript, too, just like our normal conference calls. It's much easier/faster to review and reference a written transcript.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mary/Steve:
Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible?
Thanks, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.
OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.
The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don¹t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning¹s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any ³comprehensive solution² on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let¹s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call and we are awaiting word on when that will take place it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM To: Paul@law.es ZIMBRA Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the ³small group² meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC¹s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the ³small group² process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO¹s initial policy recommendations on so-called ³preventative² protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the ³small group² and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Thanks Mary. As always, this is quite helpful. I believe that what some WG members are asking is whether the call that Petter and I will be, consistent with ICANN's commitment to transparency in the policy development process, on shall be recorded or transcribed; I don't believe there was an expectation that last week's meeting in Paris hosted by OECD had been so. So that's what we need staff to check on. If there is a compelling argument for not doing so then the fallback is to Petter and I with staff assistance to provide a comprehensive report to the WG -- the other parties should understand that Petter and I would be participating in the call as the chosen representatives of this WG and have an obligation to share the discussion with its members. As for this part of your email --- As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its work in developing its consensus recommendations. --As you noted elsewhere in your message, the "focus" of the NGPC is the NEW gTLD program (that is what the N stands for) and, so far as I am aware, they have no authority to address legacy gTLD matters. Further, as regards legacy gTLDs, I know of nothing in the Bylaws that legitimizes a policy proposal assembled by the Board, GAC and staff being forwarded for GNSO consideration. The matter of CRP for IGO acronyms at gTLDs (and most certainly legacy gTLDs) is quite clearly a policy matter, or else the Council resolution establishing this WG is illegitimate. Please understand that I am not prejudging the discussion on the call that Petter and I have not yet had; and also please know that your service to this WG has been exemplary and that none of this reply is directed at you personally. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of two competing proposals being issued as regards second level CRP for IGO acronyms, one from a group populated by IGOs that have refrained from meaningfully engaging with a WG that is dedicated to protecting the full scope of their lawful rights, and another from this very WG which is based upon consensus agreement on relevant legal and policy facts and resulting considerations. The Council should never be placed in the position of having to choose between two competing proposals, and I know of nothing in the Bylaws that condones such a situation. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:22 PM To: George Kirikos; Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil) Hello again everyone, As the ³small group² isn¹t a GNSO Working Group or Cross-Community Working Group, the meeting was not recorded or transcribed in the same way as we would do for GNSO WG/CWGs. I expect that the status of the proposal will be one of the major items to be discussed on the call between Phil, Petter, Mason, Chris Disspain and Thomas Schneider. Staff is trying to confirm some possible dates for the call, and I hope we will be able to find mutually agreeable times in short order. We will of course be happy to work with Phil, Petter and Mason to put together a report for this WG following the call. It may be worth noting that the IGOs, NGPC and GAC do not intend the updated proposal to be a directive to the GNSO, as they have each expressly acknowledged the role of the GNSO in developing gTLD policy. This was in fact a topic of discussion among the GNSO Council, the GAC and the Board some time ago. Additionally, the NGPC¹s original proposal - and the NGPC-GAC dialogue - pre-dated the formation of our WG and deals with broader issues than the scope of our Charter (i.e. issues concerning Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and claims notice protections for IGO acronyms). There are also other differences between the focus of the NGPC-GAC discussions being conducted through the ³small group² and the two GNSO PDPs (including this one), primarily, the focus of the former on the New gTLD Program whereas the scope of the GNSO work covers both legacy and new gTLDs. This point was specifically noted during the GNSO Council¹s discussion with Chris Disspain over extending TMCH and claims notice protection for IGO acronyms last September. As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its work in developing its consensus recommendations. I apologize if some of these points have been made previously, but I thought it helpful to refer to them again here, especially for those WG members who may not have followed the history of the topic of IGO protections closely. As mentioned in another email, staff is also continuing to contact those experts whose names have been put forward, to find out their availability, interest and rates. Our thanks go to those WG members, especially Jim Bikoff, who have been very helpful in this regards. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> -----Original Message----- From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 18:58 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
They should make a transcript, too, just like our normal conference
calls. It's much easier/faster to review and reference a written
transcript.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Mary/Steve:
Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible?
Thanks, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul
Tattersfield
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message
from Petter and Phil)
Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>
wrote:
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.
OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue
relating
to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is
suspect
on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.
The Board should learn that its out of process policy development
machinations are not acceptable.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax +1.415.738.8087
On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don¹t know if Petter and I can have
other
WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group
and
that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as
well
as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as
soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting
shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning¹s
monthly
GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the
concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this
WG was
stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that
any
³comprehensive solution² on IGO protections proposed to be put together
by
the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level
issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let¹s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the
next
week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If
circumstances
dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the
sovereign
immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call and we are awaiting word on when that
will
take place it might be useful if WG members came together on a few
points
that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that
discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM
To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA
Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>);
gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message
from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or
otherwise
participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip
Corwin, WG
co-chairs]
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have
decided
to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this
Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the
³small group² meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and
ICANN
Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is
likely to
be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by
September. This is in line with the GAC¹s Buenos Aires Communique and
the
objectives of the ³small group² process when it was formed to discuss
the
initial March 2014 proposal from the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee
(NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend
beyond
but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development
process, and to take into account the context of our work, which
includes
the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO¹s
initial policy recommendations on so-called ³preventative² protections
and
GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon,
along
with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the
original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison,
with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair)
within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a
first-hand update on the work of the ³small group² and discuss the
likely
progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO
protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As
such,
we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to
have
our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call
as
soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date:
07/18/15
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date:
07/18/15
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Hello Phil and all my apologies for misunderstanding the request; yes, of course we will check as regards recording/transcripts for the planned call with Chris and Thomas. In relation to your point about policy proposals that cover (or overlap with) legacy and new gTLDs, it is certainly a point that the GNSO Council may wish to take up again with the NGPC, and perhaps a topic to bring up in the forthcoming meeting with Chris Disspain and Thomas Schneider. Finally, thank you for your kind words about the staff support to this WG, not just here but also publicly to the Council! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 22:03 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Thanks Mary. As always, this is quite helpful.
I believe that what some WG members are asking is whether the call that Petter and I will be, consistent with ICANN’s commitment to transparency in the policy development process, on shall be recorded or transcribed; I don't believe there was an expectation that last week's meeting in Paris hosted by OECD had been so.
So that's what we need staff to check on. If there is a compelling argument for not doing so then the fallback is to Petter and I with staff assistance to provide a comprehensive report to the WG -- the other parties should understand that Petter and I would be participating in the call as the chosen representatives of this WG and have an obligation to share the discussion with its members.
As for this part of your email --- As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its work in developing its consensus recommendations.
--As you noted elsewhere in your message, the “focus” of the NGPC is the NEW gTLD program (that is what the N stands for) and, so far as I am aware, they have no authority to address legacy gTLD matters. Further, as regards legacy gTLDs, I know of nothing in the Bylaws that legitimizes a policy proposal assembled by the Board, GAC and staff being forwarded for GNSO consideration. The matter of CRP for IGO acronyms at gTLDs (and most certainly legacy gTLDs) is quite clearly a policy matter, or else the Council resolution establishing this WG is illegitimate.
Please understand that I am not prejudging the discussion on the call that Petter and I have not yet had; and also please know that your service to this WG has been exemplary and that none of this reply is directed at you personally. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of two competing proposals being issued as regards second level CRP for IGO acronyms, one from a group populated by IGOs that have refrained from meaningfully engaging with a WG that is dedicated to protecting the full scope of their lawful rights, and another from this very WG which is based upon consensus agreement on relevant legal and policy facts and resulting considerations. The Council should never be placed in the position of having to choose between two competing proposals, and I know of nothing in the Bylaws that condones such a situation.
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:22 PM To: George Kirikos; Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Hello again everyone,
As the ³small group² isn¹t a GNSO Working Group or Cross-Community Working Group, the meeting was not recorded or transcribed in the same way as we would do for GNSO WG/CWGs. I expect that the status of the proposal will be one of the major items to be discussed on the call between Phil, Petter, Mason, Chris Disspain and Thomas Schneider. Staff is trying to confirm some possible dates for the call, and I hope we will be able to find mutually agreeable times in short order. We will of course be happy to work with Phil, Petter and Mason to put together a report for this WG following the call.
It may be worth noting that the IGOs, NGPC and GAC do not intend the updated proposal to be a directive to the GNSO, as they have each expressly acknowledged the role of the GNSO in developing gTLD policy. This was in fact a topic of discussion among the GNSO Council, the GAC and the Board some time ago. Additionally, the NGPC¹s original proposal - and the NGPC-GAC dialogue - pre-dated the formation of our WG and deals with broader issues than the scope of our Charter (i.e. issues concerning Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and claims notice protections for IGO acronyms). There are also other differences between the focus of the NGPC-GAC discussions being conducted through the ³small group² and the two GNSO PDPs (including this one), primarily, the focus of the former on the New gTLD Program whereas the scope of the GNSO work covers both legacy and new gTLDs. This point was specifically noted during the GNSO Council¹s discussion with Chris Disspain over extending TMCH and claims notice protection for IGO acronyms last September.
As such, the proposal referred to by the OECD in its recent letter is expected to cover both the ³preventative² and ³curative² aspects of IGO acronym protection, per the original NGPC proposal and the subsequent discussions and letters between the NGPC and the GNSO Council. In line with the express statement in the letter that the proposal will be forwarded ³for the GNSO¹s consideration, this basically would result in the GNSO Council being requested once again to take up the question of possible amendments to its previously adopted recommendations concerning the ³preventative² protections (per the NGPC¹s June 2014 request) and this WG asked to consider the ³curative² aspects of the proposal as part of its work in developing its consensus recommendations.
I apologize if some of these points have been made previously, but I thought it helpful to refer to them again here, especially for those WG members who may not have followed the history of the topic of IGO protections closely. As mentioned in another email, staff is also continuing to contact those experts whose names have been put forward, to find out their availability, interest and rates. Our thanks go to those WG members, especially Jim Bikoff, who have been very helpful in this regards.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
-----Original Message----- From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> > Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 18:58 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
They should make a transcript, too, just like our normal conference calls. It's much easier/faster to review and reference a written transcript.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote:
Mary/Steve:
Aside from the time/date, can you inquire whether that is possible?
Thanks, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:48 PM Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Can ICANN provide our WG with an mp3 of the meeting?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote:
Thanks Phil, I was a week behind on email due to vacation.
OK would expand your sentiment such that any agreement on any issue relating to any of the GNSO Supermajority advice re any and all IGO issues is suspect on process grounds, due to exclusion of GNSO from this 'small group'.
The Board should learn that its out of process policy development machinations are not acceptable.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com>
On Jul 23, 2015 3:30 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote:
Mike:
As I previously replied to Paul, I don¹t know if Petter and I can have other WG members on this call , seeing as it is envisioned for a small group and that will encourage a full and frank discussion.
But I do think we should work with staff to provide a full report, as well as an analysis for how the discussion may impact the task of this WG, as soon after the call as practicable -- and schedule our next WG meeting shortly thereafter.
Beyond that, I want all WG members to know that on this morning¹s monthly GNSO Council call I raised the issue of the OECD letter during the concluding portion of the meeting and put Council on notice that this WG was stuck in place due to lack of access to expert legal advice -- and that any ³comprehensive solution² on IGO protections proposed to be put together by the Board, GAC and IC ANN staff that addressed the CRP/second level issueraised serious process/policy development issues.
Let¹s see what happens on the call and what staff can advise us in the next week or two on prospects for securing that expert input. If circumstances dictate we may just have to take it upon ourselves to research the sovereign immunity scope question.
Finally, in advance of the call and we are awaiting word on when that will take place it might be useful if WG members came together on a few points that they want Petter and I to emphasize when we engage in that discussion.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:10 PM To: Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA Cc: Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu <mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> ); gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Rescheduling WG call this week (message from Petter and Phil)
Me too, thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es> ZIMBRA <paul@law.es <mailto:paul@law.es> > wrote:
Phil, I would very much like to be able to listen to this call or otherwise participate to the extent you feel appropriate.
Paul Keating
On 21 Jul 2015, at 3:15 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > wrote:
[Sending the email below on behalf of Petter Rindforth and Philip Corwin, WG co-chairs]
Dear WG members,
Please be informed that after consultation with ICANN staff we have decided to reschedule our Working Group meeting, originally planned for this Wednesday 22 July, to end-July or early August. We are informed that the ³small group² meeting between representatives of the IGO coalition and ICANN Board members was a positive one, and that an updated proposal is likely to be forwarded to the GAC and the GNSO for their review and action by September. This is in line with the GAC¹s Buenos Aires Communique and the objectives of the ³small group² process when it was formed to discuss the initial March 2014 proposal from the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). The IGO coalition and Board are discussing issues that extend beyond but are related to our work.
With the aim to facilitate further progress of the policy development process, and to take into account the context of our work, which includes the need to resolve the outstanding inconsistencies between the GNSO¹s initial policy recommendations on so-called ³preventative² protections and GAC advice received on the topic, we plan to hold a call very soon, along with Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Chair, Thomas Rickert as chair of the original GNSO PDP on IGO protections, and Mason as the GAC-GNSO liaison, with Chris Disspain (Board/NGPC member) and Thomas Schneider (GAC Chair) within the coming week. The aim of the call is for us to receive a first-hand update on the work of the ³small group² and discuss the likely progress within the GNSO, GAC and Board on the overall topic of IGO protections, as well as how this WG relates to the larger picture. As such, we believe that it would be most effective and productive if we were to have our next WG meeting following this call.
We will provide more details and a tentative time for the next WG call as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Petter and Phil
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
participants (6)
-
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Tattersfield -
Paul＠law.es ZIMBRA -
Phil Corwin