- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Fw: Senior Executive Roundtable with ISPs and Telecoms
by WUKnoben March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben From: David Olive Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:18 AM To: tony holmes ; WUKnoben ; Mike O'Connor ; Novoa, Osvaldo Cc: Robert Hoggarth Subject: Senior Executive Roundtable with ISPs and Telecoms FYI Regards, David http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/senior-executive-roundtable-with-isps-and-tel… -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

the comments on Stéphane's post about the RAA process are interesting
by Mike O'Connor March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

hi all, some of you probably saw this post by Stéphane "Mishandling the Registrar Contract Negotiations" when it came out. but you may have missed the interesting comments that have built up behind it. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130308_mishandling_the_registrar_contract_n… mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP
by Mike O'Connor March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

hi all, i was reviewing this proposal today and realized that it would have been helpful when we were deciding to suspend the DSSA last December. as it was, we went ahead and suspended it on our own, without checking back with our respective ACs and SOs. having a more formal process would have given us the opportunity to bring broader attention to that decision. so i could either write a personal comment of support as co-chair of that working group, or i could write one for us and use that as an example. i'm not envisioning a really long comment, just an expression of support. thoughts? mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP > Date: March 7, 2013 8:09:24 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07mar13-en.htm > > Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP > 7 March 2013 > > Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 7 March 2013 > Categories/Tags: > Policy Processes > Reviews/Improvements > Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, which is an integral part of the GNSO Operating Procedures, to address the possible termination or suspension of a PDP. > Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

3 2

Links to GNSO weekend working sessions
by WUKnoben March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:51 PM To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] Links to GNSO weekend working sessions GNSO Working Session Beijing Saturday 2013-04-06 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio… GNSO Working Session Beijing Sunday 2013-04-07 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Notes from ICANN's expert working group on gTLD Directory Services meeting - 26-27 February
by Mike O'Connor March 10, 2013

March 10, 2013

hi all. ICANN just posted the notes from the Whois-replacement expert group. here's the link https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40932713/Public+Report+of+… mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

RV: [council] Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment
by Novoa, Osvaldo March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

All, I think you should all be aware of this situation and consider if we should post any comment on the proponed RAA. I think we should. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: Viernes, 08 de Marzo de 2013 12:10 CC: council(a)gnso.icann.org List Asunto: Re: [council] Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment To complete the set of documents, I am fowarding the statement of the RrSG Negotiation Team on the current state of the negotiations. Please note that the proposal currently envisioned by ICANN will effectively move the policy development process from the GNSO to the board. Most of the still contentious areas of the agreement are additions ICANN staff made this February after having let the negotiations languish in pause-mode for three months after the Toronto meeting and contain items that were never discussed with the registrar negotiation team since first proposed, due to other "matters of higher urgency". This agreement is a portent of things to come and of a move away from the multi-stakeholder model to a top-down structure. Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT) statement regarding RAA negotiations After nearly 18 months of negotiations with ICANN over a new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), formal negotiations have concluded. The posting of a "proposed" 2013 RAA by ICANN for public comment signals that ICANN staff believes that negotiations have concluded and the remaining issues will not be resolved. The Registrars' NT disagrees. To be clear, this is NOT the outcome that registrars wanted, and they remain ready and willing to continue negotiations. Prior to the Toronto ICANN meeting (October 2012), all parties acknowledged that they were very close to agreement on all remaining issues. The process appeared to be reaching a favorable conclusion and when ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé communicated his desire to have RAA negotiations wrapped up by the end of 2012, registrars felt it was an ambitious timeframe, but one worth pursuing for the benefit of all parties. When negotiations finally resumed in February 2013 much to the surprise of registrars, the few remaining issues were not the only items under discussion. ICANN staff presented a list of 10 brand new items for inclusion in the agreement, under the pretext of enhancing the "public interest." Furthermore, these new items came along with an arbitrary deadline and decision to link the 2013 RAA to the new gTLD timeline. Among these new demands was a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document (R3), a temporary privacy accreditation program and a requirement that registrars accept and implement recommendations of the WHOIS Expert Working Group, which had yet to be formed and whose work is just beginning. Although registrars were surprised by these new demands, registrars worked in good faith with ICANN to accommodate its intentions. For example, registrars consulted with their members to fine-tune the R3 document to make it easier to understand and readily translatable in other languages. Some of the other new items for inclusion transcend the RAA and could affect the entirety of the multi-stakeholder model. For example, ICANN insisted on including a proposed Revocation (or "blow up") Clause that would have given them the ability to unilaterally terminate all registrar accreditations. After major pushback, ICANN staff relented and in its place proposed giving the ICANN Board the ability to unilaterally amend the RAA. This is identical to what ICANN inserted into the proposed new gTLD registry agreement-a clause met with strong opposition not only from the Registry Stakeholder Group but from the broader ICANN community. The effect of such a clause in the primary agreements between ICANN and its commercial stakeholders would be devastating to the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. First, it will effectively mean the end of the GNSO's PDP, as the Board will become the central arena for all controversial issues, not the community. Second, it creates an imbalance of authority in the ICANN model, with no limits on the scope or frequency of unilateral amendments, and no protections for registrars and more important registrants. In addition to the new items for inclusion there was a surprise announcement that all new gTLD registries must only use registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA, a transparent effort by ICANN to arbitrarily link the new gTLD program to the outcome of RAA negotiations. This requirement would create separate "classes" or "levels" of registrars, which is unprecedented in the DNS industry. There can and must be only one meaning of "ICANN-Accredited." All of the items that have been agreed to over the past 18 months would, by themselves, produce an RAA that is vastly improved over the current 2009 version. If adopted, that RAA would significantly raise performance requirements for every ICANN accredited registrar and bring dramatic improvements to the domain name ecosystem. Nearly all of the Law Enforcement requests that were endorsed by the GAC have been included, as well as the major items that were requested by the GNSO are included in that RAA. That RAA would bring registrant verification. That RAA would bring enhanced compliance tools. Registrars must emphasize that the key differences between that RAA and the one currently proposed by ICANN are not issues raised by Law Enforcement, GAC or the GNSO but by ICANN staff. It now moves to the greater ICANN community to review these competing draft RAAs, and registrars look forward to those public discussions. We welcome engagement with all stakeholders on the new 2013 RAA, and what it means for registrars, registrants, and the management of the DNS as a whole. https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 7 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 28 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 29 March 2013 Reply Close Date: 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-07mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-proposed-raa-07mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is seeking public comments on a Proposed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), particularly on areas where ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team have not been able to reach agreement in principle. This represents the first time in the nearly 18 months of negotiations that community comment is formally sought on this document. Current Status: ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team commenced negotiation on amendments to the RAA in October 2011. While the documents posted today show many areas of agreement, there are differences between the ICANN and Registrar positions are highlighted. In addition, further discussion is still ongoing regarding some of the specifications to the agreement. Next Steps: After review of the comment received, the proposed 2013 RAA will be reviewed to determine if further changes are warranted. In addition, ICANN and the Registrar NT are likely to continue discussions regarding the areas where the specifications remain open. The ultimate goal is to have a 2013 RAA completed and approved in the near future. Staff Contact: Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel Email Staff Contact<mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%202013%20RAA%20Posted%20for%20Comment%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: After nearly 18 months of negotiations, ICANN is posting a new version of the proposed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for public comment. The Registrar Negotiating Team (NT) has continued to engage in good faith negotiations to understand ICANN's perspective with respect to the outstanding issues, and to share the often divergent positions within the Registrar Stakeholder Group. Recently, additional revisions were proposed by ICANN's Negotiating Team stemming from the call by ICANN's CEO, Fadi Chehadé, to work to improve the image of the domain industry and to protect registrants through a further updated contractual framework. The Registrar NT considered each of these new issues, and worked towards finding solutions where appropriate. The RAA posted today reflects hard-fought concessions on many of key issues raised throughout the negotiations, and highlights issues remaining in order for the final 2013 RAA agreement to be reached. Throughout the RAA and its Specifications, there are portions where two versions of draft text appear side by side. These highlight areas where ICANN and the Registrars have not been able to reach agreement in principle on an issue, therefore both positions are provided for comment. Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of the document reflects agreements in principle among ICANN and the Registrar NT. A fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of difference is available in ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-07mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 66 KB]. Section II: Background: The current round of negotiations over the RAA began in October 2011. ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have presented updates to the community at each of ICANN's public meetings since that time. Information on the history of the negotiations, including previously released documentation, is available at the community wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi…. This includes the group of documents posted in June 2012, which demonstrated the progress to date in the negotiations. Section III: Document and Resource Links: There are multiple documents for review as part of this posting. The new RAA is anticipated to be a base document with a series of specifications attached. This posting includes all documents that are currently anticipated to be part of the 2013 a. As noted above, a fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of difference is available in ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-07mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 66 KB]. The base RAA documents: * Proposed 2013 RAA, Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-07mar1…> [PDF, 281 KB] * Redline showing changes between Proposed 2013 RAA and the June 2012 RAA Posting<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-03jun1…> [PDF, 205 KB] * Redline showing changes between Proposed 2013 RAA and the 2009 RAA<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-2009-r…> [PDF, 259 KB] * A Summary of Changes from the June 2012 RAA Posting<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-summar…> [PDF, 268 KB] is also available. The Specifications and Addendums: For the Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification, the Data Retention Specification, and the Whois Accuracy Program Specification, each is available in annotated format to show where differences remain with the registrars, as well as redlines showing the differences in the documents from the 2012 posting. * Proposed Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification, Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-tempor…> [PDF, 121 KB] * Redline showing changes between to the Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification and the June 2012 Version<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-tempor…> [PDF, 95 KB] * Proposed Data Retention Specification, Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-0…> [PDF, 113 KB] * Redline showing changes between to the Data Retention Specification and the June 2012 Version<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-r…> [PDF, 118 KB] * Proposed Whois Accuracy Program Specification, Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-0…> [PDF, 116 KB] * Redline showing changes between to the Whois Accuracy Program Specification and the June 2012 Version<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-r…> [PDF, 142 KB] For the remaining specifications to the RAA, the versions below are provided as ICANN's latest proposal. The Registrar Negotiation Team is still considering each of these specifications: * Proposed Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-right…> [PDF, 48 KB] * ICANN Proposed Specification on Proxy/Privacy Services<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-07…> [PDF, 70 KB] * ICANN Proposed Additional Registrar Operation Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-opera…> [PDF, 78 KB] * ICANN Proposed Registrar Information Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-inform…> [PDF, 76 KB] * ICANN Proposed Whois Specification<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-07mar13-en…> [PDF, 160 KB] * ICANN Proposed Compliance Certificate<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certi…> [PDF, 64 KB] * ICANN Proposed Transition Addendum <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-adden…> [PDF, 63 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: None ________________________________ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. 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

Re-Submitting a Motion Revised 20 February
by WUKnoben March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

All, on request of the GNSO council the Standing Commitee of Improvements (SCI) was investigating whether and under which circumstances and conditions permission should be granted that council members may re-submit a motion which the council in the past already dealt with. Since so far there is no consensus on one way or the other attached you’ll find the options the SCI came up with. Please take a look and let us know which one you’d prefer if any Regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Fw: [council] Reminder: Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation
by WUKnoben March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:22 AM To: mailto:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Reminder: Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04mar13-en.htm Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation 4 March 2013 You are invited to a review of the findings of the Registrant ID Study Draft Report, recently published for public comment. The authors of the report (NORC) and ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday 6 March at 12.00 UTC and Wednesday 6 March at 19.00 UTC to summarize the findings from the WHOIS Registrant ID Study. The webinar will cover the methodology used to compile the data and provide an analysis of the findings. The two sessions will be identical, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. Participants also will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, a recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff always is available to answer questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 12.00 UTC or Wednesday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an email reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-pednrimpl-rt] Implementation of Expired Registration Recovery Policy
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

hi all, this was a long hard WG, but the results are a step in the right direction. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-pednrimpl-rt] Implementation of Expired Registration Recovery Policy > Date: February 28, 2013 5:03:39 PM CST > To: "'gnso-pednrimpl-rt(a)icann.org'" <gnso-pednrimpl-rt(a)icann.org> > > > https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb13-en.htm > Implementation of Expired Registration Recovery Policy > > 28 February 2013 > ICANN is pleased to announce the implementation of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy ("ERRP"). This policy was developed from the Generic Name Supporting Organization ("GNSO")'s Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery ("PEDNR") recommendations, which were adopted by ICANN's Board of Directors on 28 October 2011. The policy was drafted in consultation with the GNSO's PEDNR Implementation Review Team and was posted for public comment on 11 October 2012. > > The ERRP is expected to promote better understanding of registrants' options and help alleviate common issues related to the expiration of gTLD registrations. This policy is intended to help align registrant expectations with registrar practices by establishing certain minimum communications requirements and making renewal and redemption of domain name registrations uniformly available in prescribed circumstances. > > Some of the most notable provisions of the ERRP include the following i: > > To help prevent unintended non-renewal of domain name registrations, registrars will be required to notify registered name holders of the expiration of their registrations at least two times: approximately one month prior to the expiration date and, again, approximately one week prior to the expiration date. > All gTLD registries must offer a Redemption Grace Period of 30 days immediately following the deletion of a registration. (Sponsored gTLDs are exempt, and not required to offer a Redemption Grace Period.) During the Redemption Grace Period, the registrant must be permitted by its registrar to restore the deleted registration. > To promote consumer choice and awareness, registrars must make their renewal and redemption fees reasonably available to registered name holders and prospective registered name holders at the time of registration of a domain name. > As in the past, registrars may delete registrations at any time after they expire, subject to applicable consensus policies and provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. However, the ERRP requires that resolution of the domain name be interrupted for a period of time after expiration, but before deletion, of the name to help make the registrant aware of the expiration of its name. Additionally, any parking page hosted by the registrar at the expired domain name must include or point to renewal instructions. > All ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registries are required to comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy by no later than 31 August 2013. > > Consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO's PEDNR Working Group, ICANN is in the process of developing educational materials in consultation with interested stakeholders to help the community better understand this policy and how it applies to them. > > A link to the ERRP can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp > > i The actual language of the ERRP is binding on ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registries, not the summary provided here. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
by Novoa, Osvaldo Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

All, This would be the definitive version of the letter to Fadi regarding the Strawman Proposal. Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Fecha: 27 de febrero de 2013 07:31:49 GMT-02:00 Para: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell(a)gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Me too Maria! I have received the latest draft from Mason and would like to thank him and colleagues for the good work they have done to move this forward to a draft that we may all be able to support, at least in some way. This is clearly one of those issues that has polarised views on the Council and so seriously challenges our ability to produce a single coherent output. I have worked over Mason’s draft and made editorial changes which I do not believe to be material. I have attached this as a redline and encourage comments / improvements on that. However, for reference, I have also included the draft as received from Mason. Let’ s push this over the line and get it back to Fadi now. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: 27 February 2013 08:30 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mason Cole; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Great, I'm just happy if it is finally approaching resolution! On 26 February 2013 21:59, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote: Thanks Maria for the prompt and Mason for the update. Clearly time is tight but if I have a near final draft, I’ll be in a position to add finishing touches before sending within the deadline (just) Jonathan From: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@5x5com.com<mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>] Sent: 26 February 2013 21:10 To: Maria Farrell Cc: Jonathan Robinson; john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Hi Maria -- Let me hopefully not rudely pre-empt Jonathan on this to provide an update. You'll recall after the council meeting (in January I believe) when we discussed this, you and others volunteered to help with the draft and provided a round of feedback. I incorporated that feedback into the draft. Following, Brian made the IPC's concerns known in his comprehensive email -- he and I discussed IPC input late this last Friday afternoon. Based on some of his feedback he and I were able to reword some of the letter so IPC concerns were met but the majority of the council's views are unchanged. Brian asked for some time to provide final feedback, and we agreed on a deadline for that at close of business today. Following receipt and incorporation of his input as appropriate, I will forward it to Jonathan to shepherd through the rest of the council process. Sorry for the relative silence over the past few days. I believe (hope, anyway) this is near completion. Mason On Feb 26, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: Jonathan, I proposed on the drafting group almost three weeks ago a compromise solution, that the majority of Council members who seem likely to support Mason's draft should do so and send it on behalf of the Council, and that a dissenting 'minority report' can be included in the letter. It's been almost three weeks and, disappointingly, I've never received a response to that proposal. As there appears to be a clear majority in favour of the positions the letter takes, I propose we vote immediately on whether to endorse it or not. Best regards, Maria On 21 February 2013 18:04, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote: Thanks John, Do you mean letter to Steve or Fadi? If the latter, I agree that we should certainly make the point as indeed we did with the GAC. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> Sent: 21 February 2013 17:31 To: Jonathan Robinson; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Jonathan, Steve's request is one of a set of growing inquiries to the Council ( e.g., Fadi's letter, GAC questions) that put the cart of the Council ahead of the horse of the GNSO. Though the Council is a creature of the GNSO and has a narrow role, there is room for moving a bit further afield, but ultimately, the constituencies and stakeholder groups have their final say. Why not use the letter to Steve to reset terms and conditions? I know I am but one vote. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Date: 2/20/13 3:09 pm To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> John, Thanks and agreed, letting Groups / Constituencies speak for themselves would make the path easier, as you suggest. My concern with that approach, particularly as we have had so long to deal with Fadi’s request, is our reputation as an effective Council. My personal opinion is that, if at all possible, we need to produce something more substantial and ideally a single output. On a related point, we do have another issue, and that is making sure our primary role as policy manager not legislator is well understood. But we can continue to work on this point outside of the response to Fadi and it seems to me that it may well be a potential topic for discussion with both Board and GAC in Beijing. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> Sent: 20 February 2013 21:01 To: Winterfeldt, Brian; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Mason, et. al., Brian makes a rather eloquent case -- far better than I had been able to do. He restates my own previous comments with regard to the "expansion of rights" and "majority," then goes further. All are good points and worth considering, though on our current time-frame that may not be logistically possible. All this leads me to re-submit my initial suggestion on this letter: tell Steve our best thought is to let the constituencies and stake-holder groups speak for themselves. It would certainly make the letter a lot shorter and easier to approve! Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Date: 2/20/13 9:13 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Dear all: As promised on our last Council teleconference, here is written feedback from the IPC with respect to the current draft response to Fadi Chehadé on strawman solution and limited preventative registrations proposal. More specifically, this is a critique of the draft GNSO Council statement on the strawman which we feel does not accurately reflect a consensus or considered analysis as urged by Chair Crocker. The list is non-exhaustive and our intent is to demonstrate that there are a number of flaws in the current draft that we should address as a Council. • The IPC is concerned with the statement that the strawman solution represents “expansion of trademark rights beyond law.� Apart from being a legal conclusion, it implies that the strawman is composed of solutions or protections to which trademark owners have no legal right. To the contrary, trademark owners have the legal right to prevent infringement of their marks, and the rights protection mechanisms being established as part of the new gTLD program are founded on this fundamental right. The Strawman merely addresses the implementation of this policy, not its extension or expansion. • The IPC believes the use of the term “majority� throughout the letter is misleading as it minimizes the fact that an entire Stakeholder Group—indeed the Stakeholder Group whose members will bear the greatest economic impact from inadequate rights protection mechanisms—unanimously agrees that additional rights protection mechanisms are essential. Put another way, a vote should be necessary before asserting that a “majority of the Council� feels a certain way, particularly the presumption that “protection policies for new gTLDs are sufficient and need not be revisited.� It is also important to note that not all stakeholder groups or constituencies submitted comments in the public comment forum, so we should not assume that there is a majority in support. It might be an overstatement. Of the statements that were submitted, in addition to the BC/IPC comments, the ISPC "endorsed the intent and critical importance of preventing fraudulent registrations and reducing defensive measures and agrees that the RPMs currently in the AGB may be improved; however, ISPCP is neutral on the subject of specific RPMs." The use of the term "majority" usually refers to a majority in each house. However, With the IPC, ISP and BC taking a different approach, we believe the statement of "majority " in support of the letter is not really accurate. Sending the letter as written would go against the spirit of the carefully thought-out comments of these groups. • There is a difference between “agree[ment] to socialize these [proposals] to the rest of the GNSO� as Dr. Crocker is quoted as saying and the requisite GNSO Council support asserted in the draft letter. Indeed, here are a few more compelling and recent quotes from Fadi Chehadé during the NCPH intersessional meeting, “… I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it.� “Some of the things that came out of the strawman discussions make sense and are implementation decisions.� And, “unless the community vehemently disagrees … that work will not be counted out, we will look at it in good faith.� Most recently, in Mr. Chehadé’s February 13, 2013 video blog, he affirmed that the Strawman Proposal is absolutely legitimate and that the statements he made in Amsterdam on this topic were taken out of context. He confirmed that his “mistake� was in the way he convened the meetings, and that the work on the Strawman is “not throw away work�, but rather, it is important work. • The letter cites ICANN’s goal of advancing “competition in the domain name industry,� but fails to reflect temperance with the new gTLD policy toward not infringing the legal rights of others which advances consumer trust of the system. • The letter is silent with respect to the thirty-day sunrise notice period—an aspect of the strawman solution that most public comments seem to agree is a noncontroversial implementation detail. • Comments on Claims 1 and Claims 2 appear seriously inaccurate and seems to ignore the contours of the process and raise a number of implementation questions as policy matters—“How would payments be made and allocated? How do Registries and Registrars adapt their technical systems…� etc. • Claims 2 imposes fewer obligations and offers fewer benefits than Claims 1. Thus, “lightweight� seems apt to us. • Most conventional dictionaries define “disenfranchise� as follows, “to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote.� The strawman has nothing to do with the right to vote. So what is the legal right to which you are referring here? If what is meant is that adopting the Strawman would deprive any stakeholder of a voice in the development of the implementation of the policy that intellectual property should be protected in the new gTLD, then that would ignore the input of numerous stakeholders. If anything, the Strawman process has enfranchised more concerned parties than ever before. • The IPC fervently disagrees with dismissal of the Limited Preventative Registration proposal as a “blocking mechanism.� Again, this also seems seriously inaccurate and appears to ignore the contours of the proposal. To sum up, it is a low-cost bulk sunrise registration. It would provide precisely the same benefits to brand owners as participation in each individual new gTLD sunrise period to which they are qualified to participate in. • The statement that this is entirely "a matter of policy" ignores the fact that the Strawman proposal resulted from “implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanism.� http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm. The fact that Mr. Chehadé has asked the GNSO Council for input on the Strawman proposal does not now turn it into a policy matter. In fact, the Limited Preventative Registration mechanism was left out of the Strawman proposal not because it was considered policy, but rather simply because it did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meetings. It is thus completely within the Council's purview to provide substantive input on these issues without resorting to a PDP. Indeed, the original rights protection mechanisms did not stem from a PDP, but from an informal GNSO process (the Implementation Recommendation Team). Formation of a working group to explore these implementation issues substantively is an option that has not been fully explored. • The response ignores the substantial number of comments submitted during the public comment forum—which reflect a significant interest in looking at this issue further from inside and, significantly, outside the IP community. For example, the ALAC statement supports a number of elements of the proposal, and encourages the GNSO to fairly evaluate them. The proposed GNSO letter does not do so. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260<tel:%2B1%20202%20429%206260> direct +1 202 903 4422<tel:%2B1%20202%20903%204422> mobile +1 202 429 3902<tel:%2B1%20202%20429%203902> fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935<tel:%2B1%20212.506.3935> direct +1 212.506.3950<tel:%2B1%20212.506.3950> fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:59:43 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Auto forwarded by a Rule All, A reminder that we really need to keep this moving. I’d like to close it off this week if at all possible. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: 14 February 2013 10:39 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; volker(a)greimann.de<mailto:volker@greimann.de> Cc: Mason Cole; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council "If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman, lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While the trademark protection can be extended to additional near match strings, it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just because a certain string has been used in an infringing manner, that does not mean that there are not also non-infringing manners in which the same string may legitimately be used." This is in fact up to each Examiner of each national PTO. That’s why it may take up to 10 months (or more) to pass such trademark examination processes. I do not think such time would be accepted by domain name applicants.... Strawman is dealing with an existing protection system in a more time optimized way. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360<tel:%2B46%280%29702-369360> E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> Thank you On 14 feb 2013 00:36 "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> wrote: If that were so, there would be less of a problem, but it is not so, in my opinion: -Does a trademark allow its owner to prevent the use of the mark by third parties in other classes, or if the mark is their name, etc, etc? I think not. There are reasons why trademarks are limited to classes and regions and why legitimate use of the same trademarked term cannot be prohibited. Yet LPR would do just that. If any legitimate potential registrant missed the sunrise period or decided to wait for a cheaper registration period, LPR would block even legitimate registrations. -Does a trademark require otherwise unrelated third parties to implement and build and maintain a system at their own costs that is solely used to inform others of a potential legal conflict, confuse customers with information potentially irrelevant to their planned use and that generally interferes with the customary flow of business by scaring away or confusing potential legitimate customers and delaying orders or inquiries? I think not. Yet Claims II does just that to registrants, registrars and registries. I am not aware of any other industry that at their own cost had to create a warning system to inform third parties of potential trademark abuse. These are just the easiest examples of why the Strawman and the attached LPR proposal will, in my opinion create new protections. The claims process in itself is a new right for trademark holders not previously granted by trademark law, so any extension of the time period carefully considered and agreed upon by the community expands the reach of this new right for trademark holders. These proposals have been on the table before in some form or other and have been rejected by the community. Fadi Chehade’s has stated himself in his letter to the U.S. Congress that the 60 days period should not be extended unilaterally by ICANN, yet this is what is proposed now. The extension of claims to non-exact matches was previously rejected by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team, i.e. a GNSO created team. If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman, lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While the trademark protection can be extended to additional near match strings, it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just because a certain string has been used in an infringing manner, that does not mean that there are not also non-infringing manners in which the same string may legitimately be used. These proposals create a new fence to protect trademark holders from legitimate and illegitimate registrations of their marks alike. Solely the 30 day notice period does not create any new rights specific to trademark holders. The rest is a matter for a PDP, not for a closed door, no outside communication allowed session. ICANN should not deviate from the multi-stakeholder principle. If any outcome of our policy development and consensus building processes is subject to unilateral revision once a small part of the community is no longer sufficiently happy with the consensus results, the multi-stakeholder model is dead. Volker I will not argue with your metaphor -- I am quite fond of apples. But I do quibble with you saying the strawman is "an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world." Trademark rights exist (not always consistently) in all earthly realms. The strawman is not seeking to create new ones, merely to create a method by which those that already exist can be enforced. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: 2/12/13 4:25 pm To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com"<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <john(a)crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Mason Cole" <mcole(a)5x5com.com><mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org List"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.orgList> <council(a)gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is. Sent from my iPad On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Mason, Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com<mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n 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. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n 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