Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections
Dear all, Regarding the appointment of an external legal expert - staff has been working to identify a number of qualified legal experts who may be available to provide this WG with the advice it seeks. During the past few weeks, we have contacted the ones who have through various sources been recommended to us, including by members of this WG, and updated the draft questions in line with the last WG email thread on the topic. Our plan is to develop a short list of interested experts who may be able to provide you with the input sought, following initial conversations with the ones we have tried to contact. Regarding the work of the ³small group² - as mentioned previously, the ³small group² was formed to serve as the primary forum for Board-GAC discussions on the issue of IGO protections. This took place during the ongoing NGPC-GAC discussions over the NGPC¹s March 2014 proposal. The NGPC proposal had been expressly requested by the Board, in a Board resolution in February 2014 that had also acknowledged the GNSO¹s policy recommendations from the initial (2012-13) PDP and asked for more time to consider them. Although the Board subsequently adopted some of the GNSO¹s policy recommendations in April 2014, these did not include those that were inconsistent with GAC advice on the topic of IGO protections. The ³small group² has therefore been working to further refine the NGPC proposal in order for the GAC and the GNSO to be in a position to resolve those inconsistencies. The GNSO has been aware of the NGPC proposal, the ongoing discussions, and the existence of the ³small group² for some time (see, e.g., the discussions between the GNSO Council and Chris Disspain, and the correspondence between the GNSO Chair and the NGPC, between mid- to late 2014). Do note that the letter specifically mentions that the updated proposal will be sent to the GNSO. There is also to be a meeting between the relevant GNSO representatives (including our WG co-chairs), the GAC Chair and Chris Disspain from the NGPC on this matter. Further, previous GAC Commmuniques and communications from the NGPC had expressly acknowledged the scope of work of this PDP WG, which is of course relevant to the outcome of the overall discussion on IGO protections. I believe I¹ve previously sent around links to the relevant Board resolutions, GAC Communiques and GNSO Council discussions on this topic so I am not including them in this note, but do let me know if anyone would like me to resend them. 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 Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 15:09 To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections
Mary, Phil and Petter.
It seems to me test there are now a number of "groups" acting under the assumption that they have been tasked with the authority to determine this issue and to provide "solutions". I am not clear if this letter is from the same or from a different group than the "small group" (whatever that is in reality).
Can you please let us know whether this letter is written by a group acting under the ambit of authority?
Finally I am growing quite perturbed by the apparent lack of legal support for the WG. We have, following advice from Staff, provided a narrow request for funds to obtain a qualified legal opinion. However, I have not seen any apparent progress on a request for funding or any authorization to retain counsel on this important issue.
We are approaching a point where conspiratorially minded persons might think the failure to authorize competent legal advisors is an effort to eliminate the legal basis for what is seemingly forming as a consensus in favor of a political approach which is not founded upon legal principals. I for one surely hope this is not the case.
I therefore reiterated my requests that :
1. The authorization be obtained for a competent qualified legal advisor to assist the WG regarding immunity issues ( a copy Of the actual funding request must be circulated to the WG): and,
2. Disclosure of the members of the now multiple groups apparently "working" on the same task assigned to this WG - namely the "small working group" and this who worked in the preparation of the letter referenced below.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:54 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Why would this letter have any meaning whatsoever? This PDP is supposed to be based on data, research, law, etc. The IGOs appear to be planning to just put out a position statement or proposal, without any data, research, law, etc., as just a means of circumventing the formal process (this very PDP) that ICANN has put in place to make sure that all stakeholders are represented.
They even made the questionable statement that this issue is "becoming increasingly critical as time goes by" -- where's the data/evidence to substantiate that assertion? IGOs have been treated just like everybody else for the past 30 years, and the UDRP has existed for more than 15 years, and the world hasn't come to an end.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We would like to draw your attention to the following letter that was just sent by the OECD Secretary-General to ICANN¹s CEO Fadi Chehade:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-2 0jul15-en.pdf. You will see that the letter references the recent Paris meeting that Phil and Petter are expecting to follow up on with the NGPC, GAC Chair and other GNSO representatives. In light of the GAC¹s recent Buenos Aires Communique that noted Dublin as a key milestone for resolving the overall issue of IGO protections, we thought you might find this letter of interest.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
As previously discussed: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-July/000382.html GAC advice shouldn't be given any deference, given it is essentially political in nature, and not built on a foundation of a careful analysis of facts and law, as the Independent Review panel decided. Some folks appear to be ignoring that decision, and are simply repeating the mistakes of the past, instead of reforming their processes. As for the statement regarding reconciling the NGPC (new gTLD program committee) proposal with the GAC advice, this seems immaterial to our work, which would decide a consensus policy for *all* gTLDs (not just new gTLDs). It seems to me that this is just an attempt to hijack our work. Some folks would be happy to see our hard work go to waste, and force through a policy for new gTLDs, which would then be applied to "legacy" gTLDs like .com/net/org. Indeed, as we saw with .travel, .pro and .cat w.r.t. to the URS, some ICANN staff have been trying to use contract "negotiations" to implement "policies" through registry contracts, instead of going through the proper GNSO policy development processes that protect all stakeholders (particularly registrants, who are not at the negotiating table when ICANN staff and registry operators are devising their agreements which directly impact their rights). On another note, all of these "concerns" from IGOs were based on an assumption back in 2014 that new gTLDs would be in high demand, and therefore there'd be a huge risk that others would tarnish their brands via cybersquatting. However, we now know those assumptions were wrong. We have the actual data, and don't need to rely on faulty projections. ICANN itself had estimated in 2014 there would be 33 million new gTLD domains registered. We know now that there are approximately 6 million. Indeed, since many of those were free giveaways, and defensive registrations, the "real" number might be more like 2 million: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile https://ntldstats.com/registrar/146-GoDaddycom-LLC (I arrive at 2 million, by basically doubling GoDaddy's numbers, which are more "legitimate" than most other sources, and given that they have a 40 to 50% share of new domain registration volume for legacy gTLDs like com/net/org) So, with IGOs "risks" lower by between 80% and 95% (depending on which numbers one uses), I really wonder why IGOs are still pressing this issue. If they have facts and data that we don't have, they should be sharing them with us, in order to be able to quantify costs and benefits.. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Regarding the appointment of an external legal expert - staff has been working to identify a number of qualified legal experts who may be available to provide this WG with the advice it seeks. During the past few weeks, we have contacted the ones who have through various sources been recommended to us, including by members of this WG, and updated the draft questions in line with the last WG email thread on the topic. Our plan is to develop a short list of interested experts who may be able to provide you with the input sought, following initial conversations with the ones we have tried to contact.
Regarding the work of the ³small group² - as mentioned previously, the ³small group² was formed to serve as the primary forum for Board-GAC discussions on the issue of IGO protections. This took place during the ongoing NGPC-GAC discussions over the NGPC¹s March 2014 proposal. The NGPC proposal had been expressly requested by the Board, in a Board resolution in February 2014 that had also acknowledged the GNSO¹s policy recommendations from the initial (2012-13) PDP and asked for more time to consider them. Although the Board subsequently adopted some of the GNSO¹s policy recommendations in April 2014, these did not include those that were inconsistent with GAC advice on the topic of IGO protections. The ³small group² has therefore been working to further refine the NGPC proposal in order for the GAC and the GNSO to be in a position to resolve those inconsistencies. The GNSO has been aware of the NGPC proposal, the ongoing discussions, and the existence of the ³small group² for some time (see, e.g., the discussions between the GNSO Council and Chris Disspain, and the correspondence between the GNSO Chair and the NGPC, between mid- to late 2014).
Do note that the letter specifically mentions that the updated proposal will be sent to the GNSO. There is also to be a meeting between the relevant GNSO representatives (including our WG co-chairs), the GAC Chair and Chris Disspain from the NGPC on this matter. Further, previous GAC Commmuniques and communications from the NGPC had expressly acknowledged the scope of work of this PDP WG, which is of course relevant to the outcome of the overall discussion on IGO protections.
I believe I¹ve previously sent around links to the relevant Board resolutions, GAC Communiques and GNSO Council discussions on this topic so I am not including them in this note, but do let me know if anyone would like me to resend them.
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 Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 15:09 To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections
Mary, Phil and Petter.
It seems to me test there are now a number of "groups" acting under the assumption that they have been tasked with the authority to determine this issue and to provide "solutions". I am not clear if this letter is from the same or from a different group than the "small group" (whatever that is in reality).
Can you please let us know whether this letter is written by a group acting under the ambit of authority?
Finally I am growing quite perturbed by the apparent lack of legal support for the WG. We have, following advice from Staff, provided a narrow request for funds to obtain a qualified legal opinion. However, I have not seen any apparent progress on a request for funding or any authorization to retain counsel on this important issue.
We are approaching a point where conspiratorially minded persons might think the failure to authorize competent legal advisors is an effort to eliminate the legal basis for what is seemingly forming as a consensus in favor of a political approach which is not founded upon legal principals. I for one surely hope this is not the case.
I therefore reiterated my requests that :
1. The authorization be obtained for a competent qualified legal advisor to assist the WG regarding immunity issues ( a copy Of the actual funding request must be circulated to the WG): and,
2. Disclosure of the members of the now multiple groups apparently "working" on the same task assigned to this WG - namely the "small working group" and this who worked in the preparation of the letter referenced below.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:54 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Why would this letter have any meaning whatsoever? This PDP is supposed to be based on data, research, law, etc. The IGOs appear to be planning to just put out a position statement or proposal, without any data, research, law, etc., as just a means of circumventing the formal process (this very PDP) that ICANN has put in place to make sure that all stakeholders are represented.
They even made the questionable statement that this issue is "becoming increasingly critical as time goes by" -- where's the data/evidence to substantiate that assertion? IGOs have been treated just like everybody else for the past 30 years, and the UDRP has existed for more than 15 years, and the world hasn't come to an end.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We would like to draw your attention to the following letter that was just sent by the OECD Secretary-General to ICANN¹s CEO Fadi Chehade:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-2 0jul15-en.pdf. You will see that the letter references the recent Paris meeting that Phil and Petter are expecting to follow up on with the NGPC, GAC Chair and other GNSO representatives. In light of the GAC¹s recent Buenos Aires Communique that noted Dublin as a key milestone for resolving the overall issue of IGO protections, we thought you might find this letter of interest.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong