- ispcp - lists.icann.org

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

WG: GNSO Council Resolutions 20 December 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 26, 2012

Dec. 26, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2012 20:19 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 20 December 2012 Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official minutes please find the two resolution passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 20 December 2012. 1 Motion to recommend protections in the first round of new gTLDs for certain Red Cross / Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names: ============================================================================================================================= WHEREAS: The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) The IOC/RC Drafting Team established 1 November 2011 by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDs; The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012; The GNSO has now (17 October 2012) initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011 pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations. That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board. 2. Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC) ===================================================================================== Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CTCCCWG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb1…) Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf) for consideration by the SOs and ACs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses these recommendations for establishing the definition, measures and three-year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CTCCC WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] FW: GNSO Policy Guidance Requested
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Robinson Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2012 09:38 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] FW: GNSO Policy Guidance Requested All, Please be aware of the note received from Fadi late my time yesterday. Jonathan From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org] Sent: 19 December 2012 21:24 To: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com) Cc: David Olive Subject: GNSO Policy Guidance Requested Dear Jonathan: I am pleased that the TMCH Strawman Proposal is on the agenda for December 20th and wanted to let you know that if the Council needs additional time to develop the policy guidance requested, such as to allow for review of the comments received in the public comment forum, or to convene a group to evaluate the Strawman Model, that this would be acceptable so long the response was received by end of February, 2012. I apologize if my prior email was not clear in this regard, and I look forward to the Council's response on this matter. All the best, Fadi Chehadé President and CEO ICANN

1 0

RV: Vice Chair Elections
by Novoa, Osvaldo Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

All, This is the only e-mail I received regarding the rotation between CSG and the NCSG. Best regards, Osvaldo -----Mensaje original----- De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.org] Enviado el: Jueves, 08 de Noviembre de 2012 05:29 Para: Zahid Jamil CC: <john(a)crediblecontext.com>; Brian Winterfeldt; petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; David Cake; mpazello(a)e-fem.net; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Joy Liddicoat; Maria Farrell; Lanre Ajayi Asunto: Re: Vice Chair Elections On 11/04/2012 04:16 PM, Zahid Jamil wrote: > Dear Wendy, > > Do you have any communications where the rotation was agreed. If you could provide them it may help us consider this and hopefully take it forward. I've included the email thread below: --Wendy >>> From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>>> Date: October 25, 2011 2:48:48 AM PDT >>> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> >>> Cc: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair >>> >>> Thank you for getting back to me, Steve. Since CSG would like to stick to the yearly rotation, we will support Wolf for VC, and then next year's VC will come from the NCSG, as we agreed. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Robin, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your note. We have considered this option but on balance we would like to keep to the agreement struck last year. Wolf is our CSG candidate and we think he should go through the election process as agreed. We believe he will do a good job for all parts of our non-contracted party house. I know he has reached out to the non-commercial side and will continue to do so. We also think Mary, who is clearly an asset to the entire council, has much to contribute in other important roles. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Steve Metalitz >>>> for the CSG Executive Committee >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:21 AM >>>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>>> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair >>>> >>>> Hello Steve, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the email. Given the dominance the contracted parties have historically had in the GNSO, and the need for the NCPH to help set the agenda in the GNSO, I'm sure you agree that it is most important to both our SG's that we have a VC who will be an effective advocate for the entire NCPH. Considering the excellent job Mary has done for the entire NCPH in this last year, would the CSG be willing to consider allowing her to stand for a 2nd term VC? >>>> >>>> I should note that we would be equally willing to consider supporting extending the term of a really good CSG councilor, in a subsequent year. >>>> >>>> I think it is in both our SG's interest to have the best VC that the NCPH can produce (from either SG), so I don't want us to get too bogged down in CSG candidate v. NCSG candidate thinking. Rather, let's think about what will best advance the interests of the entire NCPH, and a 2nd-year VC, when we've got an excellent advocate for both our SG's, will serve us both well (and the entire GNSO Council). >>>> >>>> What do you think? Can CSG consider Mary for a 2nd term? Next year we can return to the rotation and CSG can put forth a VC. >>>> >>>> Thank you again, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Robin, >>>>> At the time that our Non-Contracted Parties House last selected a vice Chair of the GNSO Council, the NCSG proposed, and the CSG agreed, that at the next election, the SG whose candidate did not prevail would have the preferential option to nominate a candidate for vice chair. That nominee would undergo a vote (nominated candidate v. none of above) and, if the candidate received 8 or more votes, would be elected. If not, then the same process as used last time would be followed (nominations from both SGs, one or more round of voting, etc.). Please see below e-mail chain setting forth this agreement. >>>>> >>>>> In accordance with this, on behalf of the CSG executive committee, let me confirm that we have nominated Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice Chair. May I suggest that you work with Marilyn Cade or Tony Holmes, who are onsite in Dakar, to arrange either for a meeting place, or for an e-mail ballot administered by the GNSO secretariat, in order to conduct an election between Wolf and none of the above before the GNSO council meeting on Wednesday. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, and please let me know if any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Steve Metalitz >>>>> For CSG Executive Committee >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:42 AM >>>>> To: Metalitz, Steven; Glen de Saint Gery >>>>> Subject: Re: Council vice chair was RE: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Just confirming there was no objection in the NCSG Policy committee to the CSG caveat. >>>>> >>>>> Glen: Please proceed with the vote at your convenience. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> a. >>>>> >>>>> On 30 Dec 2010, at 10:03, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Hi, >>>>> > >>>>> > Steve, thanks for the reply. I do not expect there will be any problem accepting the CSG caveat, just want to give the NCSG Policy group a day to review it. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Glen, I think planning on sending out the ballots on Monday, or whenever works out for you after that, should be fine. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > I will get back to you both, should there be any issue. >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks to you both and wishes for a great 2011. >>>>> > >>>>> > a. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 30 Dec 2010, at 09:35, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Avri, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The process you propose below now has the support of all of CSG, with the caveat that we review the process after two iterations (i.e., before the election for the term beginning after the last ICANN meeting in 2012). >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> By copy to Glen, and subject to Avri's confirmation on behalf of NCSG, I ask her to distribute ballots to the 13 council representatives from the CSG, NCSG, and NCA (Olga), to choose between the following candidates for vice chair: >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG) >>>>> >> Mary Wong (NCSG) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I believe 7 calendar days would be an adequate time frame for ballots to be returned to Glen. If either candidate gets 8 votes, then that candidate is the winner. If not, the leader runs against none of the above in a second round. So if we do not have vice chair in place by the time of the 1/13 council meeting, we will be well on our way to doing so. >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks to all for patience as we worked this through. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> And best wishes to all for a happy new year! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Steve >>>>> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] >>>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:22 PM >>>>> >> To: Metalitz, Steven; Olga Cavalli >>>>> >> Subject: Fwd: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi,, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> 9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party House. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Where are we at? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I know we agreed that Olga serves interim, and I think that is great. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Is there any feedback on the NCSG suggestion that we just elect following the general practice that was used for the Chair election? >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I repeat it below. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> thanks >>>>> >> a. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] >>>>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:15 PM >>>>> >>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>>>> >>> Cc: Marilyn Cade; Olga Cavalli; Holmes Tony >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: update from the CSG side about progression toward >>>>> >>> election process for V.Chair/House >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Hi, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> We certainly accept Olga remaining while we figure this out, which I >>>>> >>> hope is soon, really soon. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Yes, our candidate is Mary. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I would like to counter propose. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> We follow the GCOT defined process for the chair. it is, in >>>>> >>> diplomatic speak, agreed language and would allow us to be done with it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> That means >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> 1 candidate from each SG >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> a. need 8 votes to win >>>>> >>> b. if no one gets 8, person in the lead runs against none of the >>>>> >>> above >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> - From now on, we alternate with the SG who did not pick the >>>>> >>> successful candidate, picking the v-chair candidate. They can pick >>>>> >>> the person who is currently in the v-chair (assuming they are doing >>>>> >>> a good job, and are really neutral), someone from their group, or >>>>> >>> the NCA (don't assume they would pick someone from the other group >>>>> >>> who wasn't already v-chair but they could) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> This person would still have to endure a vote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> - chosen candidate vs. none of the above >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Takes 8 to win. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I/we hate the idea of having to do this again, so I am hoping we can >>>>> >>> find a way to just finalize this and move on. especially since we >>>>> >>> have Olga filling the spot while we discuss this, the hurry probably >>>>> >>> isn't as great. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> We accept that this does not prejudice the Board seat election, >>>>> >>> though must say that the NCSG generally accepts staying with >>>>> >>> accepted language, i.e. the same process as is already accepted for the chair. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> a. > > > > Best regards, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 213 5655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.org] > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:37 AM > To: <john(a)crediblecontext.com>; Zahid Jamil; Brian Winterfeldt; petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de; onovoa(a)antel.com.uy; David Cake; mpazello(a)e-fem.net; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Joy Liddicoat; Maria Farrell > Subject: Vice Chair Elections > > Fellow Non-Contracted House Councillors, > > We left Toronto (missed you, Zahid and Joy!) without a clear resolution to the Vice Chair discussions for our House. I think we need to resolve this among Council, since we're the ones who will have work closely together to make the Council function and our SG/constituency leaders seem to be at an impasse. > > The SG leaderships had previously agreed to two rotations of the Vice Chair position between the two SGs, one of which was completed between Mary and Wolf-Ulrich, and the second of which would then begin again with the Non-Commercial SG. So, can we conclude a nomination and vote quickly? Glen has offered to help us set up a ballot at any time. > > Best, > --Wendy > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ 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

DRAFT -- comment on the Straw Man Proposal -- DRAFT
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 8, 2012

Dec. 8, 2012

hi all, here's a first draft of a comment. there is plenty of time before comments are due, so feel free to make massive changes. :-) i've included it in the email, and also attached the Word version. mikey DRAFT ISPCP Comments on: Trademark Clearinghouse “Straw Man Solution” 1. Background The ISPCP is responding to ICANN’s request for community feedback on a “straw man solution” that was developed by a group of stakeholder representatives who met at ICANN’s offices in Los Angeles, CA on 15 and 16 November, 2012. Representatives of four members of the ISPCP participated in the meeting, two in person and two via remote participation. The ISPCP is on record with the following comment, made in the Toronto meeting in response to the proposal put forward by the BC and IPC: The ISPCP Constituency; • Endorses the intent and critical importance of preventing fraudulent registrations and reducing costs of defensive measures; • Agrees that the rights protection mechanisms currently in the Guidebook are insufficient to meet these goals; and • Wishes to remain neutral on the specific Rights Protection Mechanisms necessary to achieve those goals. In keeping with that position, our comments will focus on issues of process and the ISPCP will continue to remain neutral on the subject of specific RPMs. 2. Policy vs. Implementation The fundamental issue that underlies the debate about the Straw Man Solution has to do with the process by which it was developed and the question “which of these things are issues that need to go through some form of GNSO policy-making process, and which are implementation issues that do not?” Alan Greenberg made a telling comment when, on the first day of discussion, he posted to the Adobe chat “My working definition is that if you want the change, it is implementation. If you are against it, it is policy.” That comment, while made somewhat in jest, nevertheless frames up our concern fairly well. The ISPCP expresses its continued wholehearted support for the bottom-up consensus-based policy making process of the GNSO and cautions that ICANN (both the corporation and the community) bypasses that process at its peril. History shows that ICANN (the corporation and the community) have an inconsistent track record when we shortcut the policy making process to meet a tight timetable. The Straw Man Solution is just one example of this situation, other examples include: • Vertical Integration • IRT • STI • Protection for IOC/RC names • WHOIS review team recommendations • TMCH design The ISPCP supports the bottom-up policy making process because we think it is a useful and effective way to conduct deep analysis and bring about agreement across diverse interests and points of view. It is true that the GNSO policy process takes longer, but we do not find that to be a compelling argument to look for shortcuts. 3. A proposed framework for deciding what is “implementation” vs. “policy” Early in the first day of the Los Angeles meeting, ICANN’s Senior Policy Counselor Margie Milam led a discussion of a framework that can be used to sift issues between policy and implementation. We feel that this framework (summarized below) is a good one and we encourage the GNSO (and the rest of ICANN) to quickly refine and endorse a process of this type. A proposed action: Is an "implementation change" if… Criteria • It is not a result of a policy discussion • Does not materially change community proposed approach Process • Depends on scope/nature of proposed change • Must include public comment or input that is informed by analysis Safeguard • If public comment indicates Policy Guidance is required, then move it into the "policy guidance" column Is in the "policy guidance required" column if it's either An issue that can be addressed by a "policy guidance working-group" Criteria • Affects limited parties or for limited period • New information available or original approach not workable • Does not change intent of policy Process (recommended) • SO/AC forms "Policy Guidance" working group • SO/AC consideration of Policy Guidance working group recommendation (including public comments) An issue that should use the full PDP (policy development process) Criteria • New issue • One affecting all registry and registrar agreements • Long lasting impact on multiple parties • Alters policy intent Process • PDP process as described in ICANN bylaws and GNSO PDP manual 4. Meeting our commitments But what about the urgent issues that simply can’t wait for the stately wheels of GNSO policy making to turn? ICANN (especially ICANN the corporation) has commitments that need to be met. The executive management team is acutely aware that it needs to deliver a number of pre-defined target deliverables to widely publicized dates, especially in the rollout of the New gTLD Program. While the ISPCP endorses the intent and critical importance of preventing fraudulent registrations and reducing costs of defensive measures, and that the rights protection mechanisms currently in the Guidebook are insufficient to meet these goals, we feel that there are other commitments that need to be met as well. • The Board has announced that the rights protection issue has been finalized for new gTLDs. • Fadi and his team have hard dates that they have to meet and need to have a solid set of “requirements” from which to work. • Applicants have signed contracts with ICANN that are based on the language in the Applicant Guidebook. When we weigh these commitments against our view that rights protection mechanisms still need improvement, we view “scope management” as a tool to apply in order to find a way out of this dilemma. 5. The ISPCP position Having weighed these issues and discussed them among our membership, the ISPCP concludes that: 1. The bottom-up policy process is important and we bypass it at our peril 2. The proposals in the Straw Man need an expedited "policy vs. implementation" discussion/decision by the Council, preferably following a process similar to the one described in Margie Milam’s presentation 3. There is very uneven support for the various proposals at this point, ranging from tepid agreement to strong opposition. The ISPCP remains in the middle – interested in finding a good solution, but not at the expense of meeting our other commitments and responsibilities. 4. The work of rolling out the new gTLD program needs to proceed and is on a very tight schedule 5. Thus, there should be minimal changes to the TMCH, the AGB and RPMs in this round and the GNSO should take up most of the proposals in due order. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Article on RIR outreach
by MAEMURA Akinori Dec. 8, 2012

Dec. 8, 2012

Everyone, I did it quickly after today's outreach confcall, but should it be dirty. Asking you to fix every strange point, and for your comments. ----- ISPCP outreaches RIR arenas. In 2012 Autumn, ISPCP launched a new program to outreach RIR meetings. RIRs or Regional Internet Registries are administering the IP number resources, and their arenas are to discuss IP numbers policies, including Global IP numbers Policy on which IANA needs to fulfill its role. RIR members which are obtaining IP numbers from RIRs are ISPs and carriers who are fully eligible as ISPCP members, which is the very reason for ISPCP to try outreach on them. ISPCP had prepared a short presentation titled "Invitation to ICANN GNSO ISPCP" which introduced the overview of ICANN and ISPCP, in meetings of all five RIRs as below: APNIC 34, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, August RIPE 65, Amsterdam, Netherlands, September ARIN XXX, Dallas, USA, October LACNIC XVIII, Montevideo, Uruguay, October AfriNIC 17, Khartoum, Sudan, November ISPCP recognizes this series of presentations as the important first step eeto outreach, and planing do it further in future RIR meetings. ----- Thanks! Akinori

2 3

WG: Trademark Clearinghouse "Strawman Solution" - Public comment 30 November - 21 December 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 5, 2012

Dec. 5, 2012

Do we have somebody voluntarily taking the lead in drafting an ISPCP comment? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 19:33 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Trademark Clearinghouse "Strawman Solution" - Public comment 30 November - 21 December 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm Trademark Clearinghouse "Strawman Solution" Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 30 November 2012 Comment Close: 21 December 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm> Reply Open: 22 December 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:tmch-strawman@icann.org> Reply Close: 11 January 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Staff Categories/Tags: * Top-level Domains * Intellectual Property Purpose (Brief): The Trademark Clearinghouse facilitates the protection of trademark rights during the initial allocation and registration periods for domain names in new generic top level domains (new gTLDs). All new gTLD registries will be required to use Clearinghouse data to ensure that a set of mandatory trademark rights protection mechanisms are applied to all new domain registrations occurring in at least the first 90 days of domain registration. Following discussions at the Toronto meeting, ICANN met with a group of stakeholder representatives to complete implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanisms. Among other subjects, these implementation meetings addressed the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/metalitz-to-prit…> [PDF, 68 KB]. Out of discussions evaluating the merits of these recommendations, the group produced at a strawman solution to address the concerns of affected stakeholders. This strawman solution is being posted for public comment. One element of the IPC/BC proposal that was not included in the strawman solution concerned a proposal for a "Limited Preventative Registration" mechanism, which attempts to address concerns related to solutions to the second level defensive registration issue that did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meetings. Although this revised proposal is not included in the strawman solution, this proposal is also being posted for public comment to determine whether it should also be considered along with the strawman solution. Current Status: The Strawman Proposal is the result of collaboration among the participants of the post-Toronto TMCH implementation meetings. The Limited Preventative Registration Proposal is developed by and supported by the BC/IPC. In addition to the public comment period, ICANN is also seeking policy implementation guidance from the GNSO Council in relation to both of these proposals. Next Steps: Comments will be summarized and analyzed, and revisions to the relevant procedures may be considered based on the feedback received in this public comment period and from the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Karen Lentz Email: karen.lentz(a)icann.org<mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20%20Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Strawman%20Solution%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Out of the recent Clearinghouse implementation discussions, a strawman solution has been produced to balance and address the concerns of affected stakeholders. This strawman solution is being posted for public comment. This includes: * A requirement for 30 days notice in advance of each new gTLD sunrise period. * An extension of the required Trademark Claims service to the first 90 days of general registration. * A lightweight "Claims 2" period of 6-12 months that is an additional fee-based option for rights holders. * Inclusion of domain names previously determined to have been abusively registered or used in both Trademark Claims services. One element of the IPC/BC proposal that was not included in the strawman solution concerned a proposal for a "Limited Preventative Registration" mechanism. This revised mechanism is proposed by the IPC/BC to address concerns related to solutions for second level defensive registrations that did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meeting. The Limited Preventative Registration proposal is also being posted for public comment to determine whether it should be considered along with the strawman solution. Section II: Background The Trademark Clearinghouse facilitates the protection of trademark rights during the initial allocation and registration periods for domain names in new generic top level domains (new gTLDs). All new gTLD registries will be required to use Clearinghouse data to ensure that a set of mandatory trademark rights protection mechanisms are applied to all new domain registrations occurring in at least the first 90 days of domain registration. These mechanisms are described in the Applicant Guidebook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb> for new gTLD applicants. Following discussions at the Toronto meeting, ICANN met with a group of stakeholder representatives to complete implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanisms. Among other subjects, these implementation meetings addressed the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/metalitz-to-prit…> [PDF, 68 KB]. Section III: Document and Resource Links Public Comment is being sought on the following documents: * Summary of TMCH Strawman Solution<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio…> [PDF, 254 KB] * Description of the IPC/BC Proposal for Limited Preventative Registrations<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/ipc-bc-proposal-…> [PDF, 26 KB] Section IV: Additional Information * http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea… * http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/ * http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me… * http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/metalitz-to-prit… [PDF, 68 KB] * http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse * http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb (*) 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 http://gnso.icann.org

4 4

FW: [liaison6c] TR: ATRT 2 - application deadline extension to 14 January 2013
by tony holmes Dec. 4, 2012

Dec. 4, 2012

We now have a little more time. Tony ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olof Nordling Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM Subject: ATRT 2 - application deadline extension to 14 January 2013 To: "Jonathan Robinson Cc: Denise Michel Alice Jansen Dear Jonathan, The stated deadline of 5 December 2012 for applications to the ATRT 2 is drawing very close and the number of volunteers that have applied so far is low, as you can see from the repository at http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2/applications . Accordingly, on Monday 3 December we plan to announce an extension of the deadline to 14 January 2013. This would defer the subsequent steps as follows: SO/AC declarations of endorsed candidates by 28 January, selection of the team by the Selectors around 15 February and a kick-off meeting for the ATRT 2 team in early March. I hope this change doesnt cause too much inconvenience for you or for the GNSOs planning. I should also add that the above timeline is in full conformance with the letter of the AoC a launch of ATRT 2 in March 2013 is still within the prescribed interval of three years since the launch of the first ATRT. I look forward to any questions or comments you may have regarding this matter. Very best regards Olof Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1