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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see below Avri.

Chuck

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Reactions to first meeting

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.
[Gomes, Chuck] Historically what we have done is to grandfather existing 
registrations that do not fit a new policy if that is possible and then if a 
registration is deleted it cannot be re-registered.  This certainly can be 
discussed in the PDP.


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] The GAC introduced a new issue not covered by the drafting team: 
 IGOs meeting the .INT criteria.  I think the Board wants a response on that as 
well; I know the GAC does.  Your ‘humble opinion’ is correct; I thought about 
that a few weeks: if we had started a PDP when the Board made the IOC/RC 
decision for the top level, we could be done by now.
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 8:14 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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