RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Reactions to first meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick turnaround.

On the incumbent registries while I agree that changes to the single reserve 
name list should apply to incumbents, there may be recommendations to be made 
on timing and process in order to protect legitimate registrants currently 
using those names.  On the other hand, if a new kind of reserved name list is 
created, perhaps a decision could be made to make this apply only to new gTLDs. 
While I think this would be the wrong thing to do, it is a possibility that 
can're be precluded a-priori without doing the WG's substantive work for them.

On a decision for Jan 11, I thought that is what the DT did.  Perhaps a 
detailed status report on work that its applicable to the moratorium issue 
might be in order. I just think we should avoid forcing a quick decision on 
this while in the midst of the PDP. we are finally beginning to tackle this 
issue properly, let's not short-change the process.  In my not so humble 
opinion, the reason we are facing these difficulties still at this point its 
because, from the start, the PDP process has been avoided for this important 
policy issue.

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Avri,
>
>I inserted some personal responses to your comments below.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 8:14 AM
>To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Reactions to first meeting
>
>Hi,
>
>Finally got to listen to the first meeting.
>
>Feel like I have missed a fast moving train. This note constitutes my
>chasing of that runaway train.
>
>One clue to doing a PDP quickly: don't short change the planning and
>scheduling stage.
>
>Some points:
>
>- I think that the start staff made to the charter went in the wrong
>direction. It is not reasonable to render the subject of IOC, IFRC,
>RCRC, IGO, and INGO asunder. The first goal of the PDP as I understand
>it, is to establish the policy bases for special reservation status.
>This does not mean there its just one basis, there could be several
>valid bases. Once we have the basis set, then we can figure out who
>belongs to which qualified category. Specifically, we need the
>something like the following work items:
>[Gomes, Chuck] Your list of work items make a lot of sense to me for
>the PDP with the exceptions noted.
>
>
>-- establish the bases under which ICANN should expand its reserved
>names list, or to create a special reserved names list, to include IOC,
>IFRC, RCRC, IGO, and INGO related names.
>
>-- decide on whether the names should be added to the existing reserved
>names list or a new list(s) should be created.
>
>-- develop a policy recommendation on how determinations can be made
>concerning which organizations meet the bases recommended above.
>
>- this is in addition to the two I already recommended, something like:
>
>-- do an impact analysis on each of the recommendations, if any, for
>rights, competition etc. as defined in the PDP
>
>-- determine how incumbent registries should meet the new policy
>recommendations, if any.
>[Gomes, Chuck] I am not sure this step is needed because any Board
>approved consensus policy recommendations coming out of the PDP would
>apply to all registries and registrars, incumbent and new.  PDPs by
>definition are for all registries and registrars under contract with
>ICANN, the only exception being any for which the policies do not apply
>(e.g., some policies approved in the past did not apply to some
>sponsored gTLDs).
>
>
>- note: splitting IOC/RCRC from the rest, its a prediction by the staff
>of something that should be decided by the WG.
>[Gomes, Chuck] I agree with this for the PDP itself but I do believe
>that the WG will need to respond to the Board’s request with regard to
>the IOC/RCRC.
>
>
>- We shouldn't have a Jan 31 goal. For better or worse those
>recommendations have been made by the DT. They recommended a moratorium
>and the doing of PDP that should be done before first delegation.
>Though I disagreed with that recommendation in part, that is done and
>in comment review. Why rehash? As Alan says caking that a deliverable
>is a program for failure.
>[Gomes, Chuck] I do not think we must have a Jan 31 deadline for the
>PDP but I believe we do need an early January deadline to provide the
>Council with recommendations regarding how they should respond to the
>Board deadline.  In my opinion, we need to provide the Council some
>information well enough in advance of the January Council meeting so
>that they can take action regarding a response to the Board at that
>meeting. I believe that the IOC/RC DT has already provided clear
>recommendations that can be used for part of the response to the Board
>if the PDP WG supports that approach; I personally think that it would
>be ashamed to start that work all over again.  If I am correct on that,
>then I think the other task with an early January deadline would be
>whether or not there should be any interim protection for other
>intergovernmental organizations at the second level if the PDP does not
>finish before new gTLDs are delegated.
>
>
>- do IOC and RCRC really want to remain joined at the hip for the work
>in this PDP?
>
>- just because IOC/RCRC have asserted a claim based on treaties related
>to their marks, and legal has started that this assertion does not
>apply to IGOs, does not mean that the assertion has legal bearing on
>TLDs or registrations at the second level. I find it curious that there
>has not been any case law presented on the illegality of IOC/RCRC
>references used in domain names. If indeed these do run contrary to
>international and national law, where are the non-trademarks cases that
>defend these assertions? This its perhaps part of the legal research
>that needs to be done. GAC and IOC/RCRC assert it is _illegal_ to use
>certain words in domain names - in which cases has this been argued and
>found to be the case? As I have argued elsewhere while the GAC its many
>things, it is not an international tribunal; for those in doubt, please
>go back to the comments made by GAC members during MAPO/REC6
>discussions.
>
>- speaking of legal review and advice for the PDP, developing the
>questions to ask should be one of the work items for the PDP.
>Specifically
>
>-- determine whether further legal advice its necessary, and if so,
>develop a set of specific questions.
>
>
>- as for the organization of the group I recommend a Co-chair
>arrangement, such as was successfully used in IRTP-C. one took the lead
>on substance and running the meetings, the other took the lead on
>process and schedule and of course the backed each other up. I think it
>is the only way to do a forced march of PDP.
>
>~~~
>avri

~~~
avri