January 2013 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

RE: Reminder: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

Dear Glen, Sorry for our delay in submiting our response but I am enclosing it now. I hope we are still in time though the deadline was two days ago. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa ________________________________ De: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Enviado el: Miércoles, 16 de Enero de 2013 13:25 Para: tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) CC: WUK; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs(a)icann.org; Berry Cobb Mail; Brian Peck Asunto: Reminder: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Reminder ! The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests from the ICANN Board and GAC. As part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) by 15 January 2013. Please inform us whether you will be sending a statement and when it can be expected. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] De la part de Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : vendredi 7 décembre 2012 21:37 À : tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) Cc : KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs(a)icann.org; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Objet : [gnso-secs] Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCP's input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as "identifiers", of intergovernmental organizations (IGO's) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO's) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Group's effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Group's deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to address: As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue Report: * Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special Protection * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, the PDP WG is expected to: * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO organizations at the first and second levels. * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these identifiers. Questions to Consider: 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? Group View: 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new gTLDs? Group View: 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? Group View: 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? Group View: For further background information on the WG's activities to date, please see: * Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm) * Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue Report, for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts were combined with this PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

2 1

Fwd: [council] Proposed "strawman" solution for strengthening trademark protections in the new gTLD program
by WUK Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

FYI Wolf-Ulrich Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > Betreff: [council] Proposed "strawman" solution for strengthening trademark protections in the new gTLD program > Datum: 17. Januar 2013 11:27:58 MEZ > An: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > All, > > Kevin Murphy / Domainincite has summarised the issues and public comment on the “strawman” solution in a way which you might find useful. > > The link to his article is here: > > http://domainincite.com/11619-new-gtld-strawman-splits-community > > > Jonathan

1 0

RE: E-mail list
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 16, 2013

Jan. 16, 2013

Dear Wolf-Ulrich, my former e-mail account seems to be still on the ispcp list. Could you please migrate it into wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de? <<Glen: This has been done. The same would apply for a CSG list if feasible. <<Glen: Which list are you referring to? Please let me know. <<Thanks so much for reminding me about the ISPCPC list! Kind regards Glen

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2)
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

All, FYI Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Para: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: [council] FW: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) All, Note sent to SG leadership as previously agreed. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 07 January 2013 14:15 To: 'marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>' (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>); krosette(a)cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>); William Drake (william.drake(a)uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>); alain.berranger(a)gmail.com<mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com>; robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek(a)Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com>)'; Matt Serlin (matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>) Subject: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) Dear All, Please see the attached letter and supporting document regarding GNSO participation in the Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) for your consideration. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> skype: jonathan.m.r ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

ISPCP Comments on the TMCH "Strawman Solution"
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 6, 2013

Jan. 6, 2013

The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) constituency respectfully submits the attached comments on the proposed TMCH "Strawman Solution." We are available to respond to any questions. Sincerely, Mikey O'Connor ISPCP Rapporteur

1 0

Fwd: [council] Comments regarding the strawman
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 3, 2013

Jan. 3, 2013

FYI Regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Fecha: 2 de enero de 2013 14:51:02 GMT-02:00 Para: <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: RE: [council] Comments regarding the strawman Dear Mason: Thank you for repeating and clarifying the RrSG position. I am happy to repeat the IPC position, for convenience to the list, and add some personal comments. The IPC clearly supports the strawman and limited preventative registration proposals. We are disappointed at the level of disparagement of these proposals on the Council in light of the fact that representatives from each stakeholder group participated in Brussels and Los Angeles. Compromises in the strawman proposal emerged from give and take negotiation among representatives of all stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups that now assert that rights protection mechanisms should not have been revisited at all cast doubt on the good faith of the negotiators they sent to Brussels and Los Angeles. Looking at the transcript from our teleconference, I realize that I used the word “consensus” and that particular word carries a bit of baggage in the ICANN community, especially with respect to mandatory “consensus policies” referenced in the various contracts in this space. No one is suggesting that “consensus policies” were reached or even discussed in the meetings with Mr. Chehadé. Rather, quite the opposite, these were implementation meetings, not policy-making meetings. In addition, no one is suggesting that participation in the meetings with Mr. Chehadé formulates complete acceptance of the proposals. Personally, I think the primary point—as articulated by Mr. Chehadé—is that stakeholder representatives participated in a collaborative process focused strictly on common ground to advance the discussion on implementation solutions. Rather than moving forward together as Mr. Chehadé has asked, it is disappointing to see this entire process called into question and the entirety of strawman proposal disparaged by Council and stakeholder representatives. Finally, could you please clarify the statement that the RrSG would not at all characterize any meeting on the strawman as a negotiation? Are we to understand that RrSG representatives sat on the sidelines and were there just to “listen to staff’s input”? Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com<mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>> Date: December 28, 2012, 11:33:53 AM EST To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Comments regarding the strawman All -- I don't at all mean to pick on Brian personally, but I became aware earlier of a news article covering our most recent council meeting. (A side note: we should remember that the media and others listen in on our call, and our conversations are public and could end up in news coverage.) The article says: Brian Winterfeldt, Steptoe & Johnson, an IPC representative on the GNSO Council, said that the IPC does not agree with all points of the draft response. The IPC understood the strawman proposal to be the product of negotiations that resulted in a consensus among the participants—including representatives from all ICANN constituencies, Winterfeldt said. “Stakeholders who now say that rights protections should not be revisited cast doubt on the good faith of negotiations.” For avoidance of doubt, I want to restate the RrSG's understandings. Our representatives in the meeting were there at Fadi's request to discuss the trademark clearinghouse and to listen to staff's input on the strawman. They would not at all characterize that (or any meeting on the strawman) as a negotiation, nor would they say consensus exists on the content of the proposals. It was clear there would be an opportunity for comment following the meetings. Our participation in those discussions can't be presumed to be acceptance of the proposals or the process by which they were considered. I made that point on our 20 December call, I believe, but thank you for indulging my repeating it. Mason ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

FW: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
by tony holmes Jan. 3, 2013

Jan. 3, 2013

All Could I ask for a volunteer to lead on this please? Tony From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 07 December 2012 20:37 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) Cc: KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs(a)icann.org; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCPs input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as identifiers, of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Groups effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Groups deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * <http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/> http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to address: As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue Report: · Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special Protection · Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; · Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; · Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, the PDP WG is expected to: · Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO organizations at the first and second levels. · Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. · Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these identifiers. Questions to Consider: 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? Group View: 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new gTLDs? Group View: 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? Group View: 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? Group View: For further background information on the WGs activities to date, please see: · Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm) · Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue Report, for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o ct12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oc t12-en.pdf). · The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts were combined with this PDP (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 3