[review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4
Dear IRT, At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda. During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled? As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date. Requested is your review and comment. At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time. You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides Dear IRT, Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IRT, Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated. You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IGO/INGO IRT, Attached are two files for your review. The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment. The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project. Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting. Thank you again for your continued support. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org "One World, One Internet"
Dennis, Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List. What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions? Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy Here it is clean: Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. Best regards, Crystal
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear IRT,
At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda.
During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled?
As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date.
Requested is your review and comment.
At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time.
You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides
Dear IRT,
Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook
Dear IRT,
Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated.
You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook
Dear IGO/INGO IRT,
Attached are two files for your review.
The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... <https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf...> The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment.
The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project.
Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting.
Thank you again for your continued support.
— Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> "One World, One Internet"
<iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt>
<http://www.donuts.domains/>Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains/> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
Crystal, Thanks for the suggested language. I think it works well. Any comments from other IRT members? We will review it at the IRT meeting on Thursday and adapt it if no objection. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Dennis, Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List. What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions? Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy Here it is clean: Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. Best regards, Crystal On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT, At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda. During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled? As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date. Requested is your review and comment. At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time. You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides Dear IRT, Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IRT, Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated. You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IGO/INGO IRT, Attached are two files for your review. The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment. The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project. Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting. Thank you again for your continued support. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> "One World, One Internet" <iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt [onuts Inc.]<http://www.donuts.domains> Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc.<http://www.donuts.domains> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 [witter]<https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[acebook]<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[inked In]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
Hi, I would draft this slightly differently because it doesn’t cover the issue of transfers to related entities such as an successor in interest to the charity. It’s a rare occurrence but it happens. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator shall permit renewals and otherwise reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:11 PM To: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Crystal, Thanks for the suggested language. I think it works well. Any comments from other IRT members? We will review it at the IRT meeting on Thursday and adapt it if no objection. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email<mailto:crystal@donuts.email>> Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Dennis, Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List. What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions? Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy Here it is clean: Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. Best regards, Crystal On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT, At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda. During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled? As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date. Requested is your review and comment. At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time. You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides Dear IRT, Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IRT, Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated. You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IGO/INGO IRT, Attached are two files for your review. The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment. The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project. Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting. Thank you again for your continued support. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> "One World, One Internet" <iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt [onuts Inc.]<http://www.donuts.domains> Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc.<http://www.donuts.domains> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 [witter]<https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[acebook]<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[inked In]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc-> ________________________________
HI Lori and IRT team, Thank you for raising this point. I think it will help us clarify exactly what this section of the Policy is addressing. My understanding is that this section is meant to inform those instances of where a domain has been registered prior to its inclusion on a Protected List - and, as such, the registrant at the time of registration was permitted to be any entity or person. For me, the idea is to state that labels which are subsequently added to the Protected List must be reserved from initial registration, but that if it is already registered - prior to such inclusion - it may be renewed/transferred by the registrant. Note, also, that under the ICANN Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, registries are not provided with the ability to prevent a properly processed registrant-initiated transfer based on its subsequent inclusion on a Protected List. Nor are registries equipped to determine whether updated/changed registrant information is or is not a related the previous registrant. I hope that makes sense. If not, suggest we take it up on the next IRT call. Separately, regarding the new language in Section 6 - I would like to better understand what ICANN “approval” process follows in Section 7.3. It was my understanding that the GAC will be offering Advice to make additions of the Protected Lists that would then be considered by the Board? Rather than simply submitting new labels through another process. The language as drafted does not make it clear that the GAC is going to offer Advice which would require some action on ICANN’s part before becoming effective. Kind regards, Crystal
On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would draft this slightly differently because it doesn’t cover the issue of transfers to related entities such as an successor in interest to the charity. It’s a rare occurrence but it happens.
Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator shall permit renewals and otherwise reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities.
Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:11 PM To: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4
Crystal,
Thanks for the suggested language. I think it works well. Any comments from other IRT members?
We will review it at the IRT meeting on Thursday and adapt it if no objection.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email <mailto:crystal@donuts.email>> Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4
Dennis,
Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List.
What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions?
Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy
Here it is clean:
Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD.
Best regards, Crystal
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear IRT,
At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda.
During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled?
As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date.
Requested is your review and comment.
At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time.
You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides
Dear IRT,
Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook
Dear IRT,
Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated.
You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting.
Thanks Dennis Chang
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook
Dear IGO/INGO IRT,
Attached are two files for your review.
The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... <https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf...> The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment.
The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project.
Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting.
Thank you again for your continued support.
— Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> "One World, One Internet"
<iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt>
<http://www.donuts.domains/> Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains/> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
<http://www.donuts.domains/>Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains/> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
Dear Crystal and IRT, Regarding your first point, the IRT at our last meeting worked out the following language together. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL permit renewals and SHALL reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. I hope you agree too, if not, we’ll address it one more time at our next IRT. I am waiting to call the next IRT meeting for our implementation team to work somethings out. We are thinking that the current draft could be made simpler using term definition and combining sections. We’ll also address the ICANN approval that Crystal mentioned again. As for the ICANN 57 session, we’ve submitted a request for an open session and will run it like the last one in Helsinki. Thank you all for your support and please look for a meeting invite from our collegue Aysegul. Kind regards, Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 HI Lori and IRT team, Thank you for raising this point. I think it will help us clarify exactly what this section of the Policy is addressing. My understanding is that this section is meant to inform those instances of where a domain has been registered prior to its inclusion on a Protected List - and, as such, the registrant at the time of registration was permitted to be any entity or person. For me, the idea is to state that labels which are subsequently added to the Protected List must be reserved from initial registration, but that if it is already registered - prior to such inclusion - it may be renewed/transferred by the registrant. Note, also, that under the ICANN Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, registries are not provided with the ability to prevent a properly processed registrant-initiated transfer based on its subsequent inclusion on a Protected List. Nor are registries equipped to determine whether updated/changed registrant information is or is not a related the previous registrant. I hope that makes sense. If not, suggest we take it up on the next IRT call. Separately, regarding the new language in Section 6 - I would like to better understand what ICANN “approval” process follows in Section 7.3. It was my understanding that the GAC will be offering Advice to make additions of the Protected Lists that would then be considered by the Board? Rather than simply submitting new labels through another process. The language as drafted does not make it clear that the GAC is going to offer Advice which would require some action on ICANN’s part before becoming effective. Kind regards, Crystal On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Hi, I would draft this slightly differently because it doesn’t cover the issue of transfers to related entities such as an successor in interest to the charity. It’s a rare occurrence but it happens. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator shall permit renewals and otherwise reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:11 PM To: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email<mailto:crystal@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Crystal, Thanks for the suggested language. I think it works well. Any comments from other IRT members? We will review it at the IRT meeting on Thursday and adapt it if no objection. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email<mailto:crystal@donuts.email>> Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Dennis, Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List. What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions? Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy Here it is clean: Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. Best regards, Crystal On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT, At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda. During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled? As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date. Requested is your review and comment. At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time. You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides Dear IRT, Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IRT, Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated. You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IGO/INGO IRT, Attached are two files for your review. The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment. The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project. Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting. Thank you again for your continued support. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> "One World, One Internet" <iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt [nuts Inc.]<http://www.donuts.domains/> Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc.<http://www.donuts.domains/> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 [itter]<https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[cebook]<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[nked In]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc-> [onuts Inc.]<http://www.donuts.domains> Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc.<http://www.donuts.domains> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 [witter]<https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[acebook]<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[inked In]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
Dennis, Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the last call it seems and have strong objections to the proposed language. The use of the term “transfer” is misplaced and confusing. Registries cannot and should not prevent updates to registrant information (i.e. Whois information) and have no ability to determine whether or not two entities are related. And, as I stated in my email two weeks ago, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy requires registries to process properly requested registrar transfers. Note that registrants should be permitted to “transfer” between registrars – consider for instance if the registrant is the protected party at issue, why would they not be permitted to move from one registrar to another? If that language is removed, we are fine with the remainder of the provision. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL permit renewals and SHALL reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. If that does not make sense to folks, it is probably something we ought to discuss this in depth at our next meeting. Can you please remind me when the next meeting will be held? Best, Crystal From: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:03 PM To: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email>, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Dear Crystal and IRT, Regarding your first point, the IRT at our last meeting worked out the following language together. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL permit renewals and SHALL reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. I hope you agree too, if not, we’ll address it one more time at our next IRT. I am waiting to call the next IRT meeting for our implementation team to work somethings out. We are thinking that the current draft could be made simpler using term definition and combining sections. We’ll also address the ICANN approval that Crystal mentioned again. As for the ICANN 57 session, we’ve submitted a request for an open session and will run it like the last one in Helsinki. Thank you all for your support and please look for a meeting invite from our collegue Aysegul. Kind regards, Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 HI Lori and IRT team, Thank you for raising this point. I think it will help us clarify exactly what this section of the Policy is addressing. My understanding is that this section is meant to inform those instances of where a domain has been registered prior to its inclusion on a Protected List - and, as such, the registrant at the time of registration was permitted to be any entity or person. For me, the idea is to state that labels which are subsequently added to the Protected List must be reserved from initial registration, but that if it is already registered - prior to such inclusion - it may be renewed/transferred by the registrant. Note, also, that under the ICANN Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, registries are not provided with the ability to prevent a properly processed registrant-initiated transfer based on its subsequent inclusion on a Protected List. Nor are registries equipped to determine whether updated/changed registrant information is or is not a related the previous registrant. I hope that makes sense. If not, suggest we take it up on the next IRT call. Separately, regarding the new language in Section 6 - I would like to better understand what ICANN “approval” process follows in Section 7.3. It was my understanding that the GAC will be offering Advice to make additions of the Protected Lists that would then be considered by the Board? Rather than simply submitting new labels through another process. The language as drafted does not make it clear that the GAC is going to offer Advice which would require some action on ICANN’s part before becoming effective. Kind regards, Crystal On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote: Hi, I would draft this slightly differently because it doesn’t cover the issue of transfers to related entities such as an successor in interest to the charity. It’s a rare occurrence but it happens. Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator shall permit renewals and otherwise reserve such labels from initial registration or transfer to unrelated legal entities. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:11 PM To: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Crystal, Thanks for the suggested language. I think it works well. Any comments from other IRT members? We will review it at the IRT meeting on Thursday and adapt it if no objection. Thanks Dennis Chang From: Crystal Ondo <crystal@donuts.email> Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [review request] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - v5.4 Dennis, Thank you for the updated and simplified language. The removal of “Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs”, however, seems to erase the purpose of the specific circumstances envisioned by this section - where the label is registered prior to its inclusion on the Protected List. What about the following language which is a combination of the two versions? Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were (i) registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List the Policy Effective Date in Section 1.1 and (ii) not renewed by the registrant at expiration, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. such registrations MUST be deleted by the Registrar after the termination of any renewal grace periods. At the time the name completes eligible grace periods and becomes eligible for deletion, the name SHALL be withheld from registration as per section 3.1 of this Policy Here it is clean: Existing Registrations of Protected Identifiers in gTLDs. For second-level domain names matching labels protected per section 3.1 of this Policy that were registered before the label’s inclusion on the Protected List, Registry Operator SHALL reserve such labels from initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration within the TLD. Best regards, Crystal On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> wrote: Dear IRT, At the IRT meeting on the 25th, we reviewed the Protected Identifier Lists and the draft consensus policy per the agenda. During the review, Crystal brought up a scenario we hadn’t considered. 1. Policy goes effective 2. Name is registered (was not on the protected list) 3. The same name is added to the protected list. How is this handled? As a result, we’ve revised section 3.2. You’ll note that it’s considerably simpler yet covers both cases of registered name before and after the policy effective date. Requested is your review and comment. At the meeting, we’ve also agreed to hold one more IRT meeting before going to public comment. We’ll meet next week on the same day same time. You should be receiving an invite from our colleague Aysegul early next week. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - 20160825 Meeting slides Dear IRT, Attached is slide deck to be used for our meeting tomorrow. I look forward to productive review of the Draft Consensus Policy Language and the Protected Identifier List. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] FW: [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IRT, Please use the attached v5.3 for your review if you like. Mary has provided us with format improvement as few comments which I’ve incorporated. You will see that one of the comment is regarding GAC Advice. I’ll start an email regarding this just now to see if we can have an email discussion prior to the meeting. Thanks Dennis Chang From: <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:06 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] [for your review] IGO/INGO Identifier Protection Consensus Policy Implementation - CP draft and INGO list workbook Dear IGO/INGO IRT, Attached are two files for your review. The first is the reformatted Draft Consensus Policy document. You’ll note that the document refers to the “Protected Identifier Lists” which is currently placed in the IRT wiki page for your review. The hyperlink in the document should work but just in case this is the link. https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/Protected+Identifier+Lists+-+Draf... The draft consensus policy document and the protected identifier wiki page are intended to be used for the Public Comment. The second is the INGO list workbook. This is intended for IRT review only. Not intended for public comment. This workbook has been put together to show you the what ICANN staff has done to arrive at the INGO Identifier Protected List from the original list we received from UNDESA. We are continuing our effort to receive a list we can directly use from UNDESA but we’ve decided not to hold up the public comment waiting for this. This was a lot of work by ICANN staff but we believed it was important to make progress on this project. Next IRT meeting will be an important meeting as we’ll go over these as a team prior to public comment start. Please review and provide your comment prior to the meeting so that we may address your comments before our one-hour meeting. Thank you again for your continued support. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org "One World, One Internet" <iiip-draft-CP-v5.4 20160826 - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc. 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537 Crystal Ondo, Director, Legal Affairs and Compliance Donuts Inc. 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 425.919.3563 | Fax: 424.254.8537
participants (3)
-
Crystal Ondo -
Dennis Chang -
Lori Schulman