Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I too have problems with this language once we get down to it, since I consider 
the decision of the Board to add protections at the top level a mistake and am 
against any premature creation of second level protection before this PDP has 
had chance to find its feet.

In terms of special protections, I see several ways for this to be fulfilled.  
I think these are in scope as the charter is currently defined, though it is 
difficult for me to be sure, for as a non lawyer I am sure I am somewhat out of 
depth in these discussions.

In terms of protections, there are:

-  the blunt instrument: the addition of names to the reserved names list, a 
reserved names list that would apply to both incumbent as well as new gTLDs.  
The reserved names list is based on an explicit list and thus would require a 
list building exercise once we figured out the criteria for such additons.

- on the other hand it could involve mandating the creation of new Rights 
Protection Mechanism (RPMs) beyond the trademark oriented UDRP and URS.  To my 
mind thus is possibly the most in keeping with the policy decision already made 
by the GNSO.

- recommendations could be hybrid or more creative



I see the second two options as :  “specific recommendations for appropriate 
special protections for these names "
And I am sure I am not being imaginative enough at this point and there may be 
more remedies that just enlarging the reserved names list or the creation of 
new RPMs.


One thing I do know, I think,  spending a long time arguing over the charter 
will slow down the process of getting into the substance.


avri




On 15 Nov 2012, at 11:29, GUILHERME ricardo wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> I take your point but respectfully disagree (if I understood you correctly, 
> of course); there is still a clear contradiction in the language below, as 
> acknowledged by the group yesterday (emphasis is mine):
> 
> “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 and if not, 
> develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for 
> these names.”
> 
> In other words, the Charter is already determining that, EVEN if the PDP 
> concludes AGAINST permanent protection, it would still have to develop 
> “specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these 
> names.” I fail to see how this can be consistent with a de novo conclusion 
> that could potentially go against granting such specific protections in the 
> first place (I also note that the Caput of that article refers to a “general” 
> conclusion towards protection of names of certain organizations, so it 
> doesn’t really conflict with the paragraph above).  
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Ricardo
> 
> De : Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 15:16
> À : GUILHERME ricardo; 'Thomas Rickert'; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc : David W. Maher; Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Berry Cobb; Ken Stubbs
> Objet : RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter
> 
> Regarding "...and if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate 
> special protections for these names.", I stated that my interpretation of 
> this language included the possibility that as a result of the WG de novo 
> deliberations, such recommendations could be to provide no special 
> protections, and the Council Chair agreed that it was his reading as well.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 15/11/2012 09:04 AM, GUILHERME ricardo wrote:
> 
> Dear Thomas,
> 
> Unfortunately it seems like the timing was tight even for removal of the last 
> part of the second indent (which as far as I understand had been agreed by 
> the group without opposition) – nevertheless, we look forward to actively 
> following on and participating in the activities of the WG and associated 
> discussions, so that it can reach its conclusions on the basis of sound, 
> objective and non-discriminatory criteria, and in conformity with the 
> relevant international and domestic legal principles applicable to 
> intergovernmental organizations or, as the case may be, other international 
> non-governmental organizations.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Ricardo Guilherme 
> 
> De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De 
> la part de Thomas Rickert
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 14:36
> À : gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc : David W. Maher; Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Berry Cobb; Ken Stubbs
> Objet : Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter
> 
> Colleagues,
> this is to let you know that the GNSO Council has approved the proposed 
> charter as presented to the Council. 
> 
> As can be seen from the correspondence on the list earlier today, there was 
> no unanimity regarding Ricardo's proposal. Nonetheless, I have informed the 
> Council that there was debate surrounding the language. This was not picked 
> up to make any changes to the wording. 
> 
> Let me say that I am impressed with the fact that both Ricardo's proposal as 
> well as the responses thereto were made so swiftly despite time zone 
> differences. 
> 
> Let's keep this momentum and thank you all for your contributions.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> Am 15.11.2012 um 15:18 schrieb Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx >:
> 
> 
> I support David's recommended edits
> 
> Ken Stubbs
> 
> On 11/14/2012 6:10 PM, David W. Maher wrote:
> 
> Brian:
> 
> 
> I believe this goes beyond what was agreed at our meeting
> today.
> 
> 
> I do not regard the first indent as redundant or duplicative. I
> would approve removal of the phrase beginning " develop specific
> …" from the second indent.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> David W. Maher
> 
> 
> Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
> 
> 
> Public Interest Registry
> 
> 
> 312 375 4849
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Brian Peck
> <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx
> <
> mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> 
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:49:50 -0500
> 
> 
> To:
> "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> <
> mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"
> <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> <
> mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> 
> Cc: Margie Milam
> <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx
> <
> mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry Cobb
> <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <
> mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> 
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG
> charter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Members of the IGO-INGO Working Group:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the call today a proposal was submitted to the WG by
> Ricardo Guilherme for the WG to request the GNSO Council to consider
> revising the draft WG Charter which will be voted on during the Council
> meeting on 15 November.  The suggested revision is delineated
> below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members are asked to state whether they would approve or object
> to this proposal being submitted to the Council on behalf of this PDP
> WG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Council meets at 11:00 UTC on the 15 Nov. and so, WG members
> are requested to submit their approval/objection no later than 8:00 UTC
> on 15 Nov.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If approved to be submitted on behalf of the WG, then the Chair
> could submit/present to the Council for its consideration in voting on
> adopting the draft WG Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Peck
> 
> 
> Policy Director
> 
> 
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> 
> 
> From: GUILHERME ricardo
> <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800
> 
> 
> To: Brian Peck
> <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Subject: Proposed language edit for the WG
> charter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Brian,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed during the call, please find below the proposed
> remarks and edits to the WG Charter (Section "Mission and
> scope", third paragraph, first and second indents), to be shared
> with and potentially submitted by the WG before the GNSO Council call
> takes place tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An inconsistency exists between the language used in the first
> indent and the one contained in the second indent, in the sense that
> there is already an assumption that protection shall be afforded to the
> two movements/organizations named therein. Moreover, a reference to the
> initial round of new gTLDs is already provided in the second
> indent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE CURRENT DRAFT WG CHARTER READS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there
> is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all
> existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and
> acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -      Determine the appropriate
> protection for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial
> round of new gLTDs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -      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 and if not, develop specific
> recommendations for appropriate special protections for these
> names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that the WG is supposed
> to provide, on a comprehensive and objective basis, recommendations
> concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs
> (including as the case may be the IOC and the RC for the latter
> category).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequently, in case the final recommendation is to refuse
> permanent protection to one entity or another, there is no legal or
> logical reason to further "develop specific recommendations for
> appropriate special protections for these names". I may also add
> that both the IOC and the RC fall within the scope of
> INGOs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the light of the above, the first indent should be deleted
> (as it is redundant/duplicating language already present in the second
> indent) and the second indent read as follows instead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Determine whether the current special protections being
> provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial
> round of the new gTLDs are appropriate and should be made permanent for
> RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricardo Guilherme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>