[gnso-igo-ingo] MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - 5 December 2012

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,



The next call for the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) 
Working Group is scheduled on Wednesday 12 December 2012 at 19:00 UTC



Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development 
Process (PDP) Working Group  teleconference held on Wednesday 5 December 2012  
at 1800 UTC at:



http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20121205-en.mp3



On page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep>dec



The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/




Attendees:
Wilson Abigaba – NCSG
Donna Austin – AusRegistry
Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
Iliya Bazlyankov – RrSG
Mason Cole - RrSG
Avri Doria – NCSG
Bret Fauset – IPC
Elizabeth Finberg – RySG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Robin Gross – NCSG
Stephane Hankins – IPC
David Heasley – ICRC
Evan Lebovitch – ALAC
David Maher – RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil – NCSG
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit - ISO
Jeff Neuman – RySG
Jon Nevett – NTAG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
David Opderbeck – NCSG
Christopher Rassi – Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Greg Shatan – IPC
Cintra Sooknanan – NPOC
Liz Williams – Individual

Apology :
Paul Diaz – RySG
Ricardo Guilherme - RySG

ICANN Staff:
Margie Milam
Barbara Roseman
Brian Peck
Berry Cobb
Julia Charvolen



** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Thank you.

Kind r egards,

Julia Charvolen

For GNSO Secretariat



Adobe Chat Transcript:
 Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 5 DEC 2012 IGO-INGO Conference Call.
  Thomas Rickert:Hello everybody!
  Kiran Malancharuvil:hi Thomas!
  Jeff Neuman:hello
  Kiran Malancharuvil:hi all!
  Jeff Neuman:I am here, but will be on mute for a few minutes.
  Evan Leibovitch:just came in
  Julia Charvolen:Robin Gross joined the call
  Liz Williams:I'm here to help you Chuck!
  Osvaldo Novoa:Sorry I'm late, it was a bit difficult to reschedule the 
conference
  Liz Williams:what we came up with was objective and transparent criteria for 
as much as we could.  It was NOT ok for individual interests, of whatever 
persuasion, to try to lobby everyone and the ICANN Board to make decisions 
outside of the ICANN process.  If that is done, then the ICANN process is 
meaningless.
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):It is perhaps also important to bear in mind that 
the UDRP does not cover IGOs, and that while being careful about changing past 
recomendations unduly, one significant development since the earlier Reserve 
Name discussions, is a massive DNS expansion.  So its just about re-opening old 
processes, there are also genuinely new developments we need to be considering.
  Jeff Neuman:David - That was a purposeful decision made in 2003 or 4
  Jeff Neuman:after the "WIPO 2" process
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):meant "not just about"
  Liz Williams:One of the other issues is that the opportunity to apply for a 
new TLD was open to everyone and any organisation to apply for a new TLD.  The 
resources expended in the reverse engineering of protections is now, I think, 
at the point where it would have been more sensible and more objective for any 
of these organisations to apply for their own names.
  Jeff Neuman:The ICANN Board, after a presentation from a number of 
governmnets that actually opposed protecting the IGOs at the time
  Jeff Neuman:voted down the recommendations from WIPO to change the UDRP
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):"at that time"
  Jeff Neuman:True --- that was then and this is now
  Evan Leibovitch:thanks all for the history. This is helpful.
  Donna Austin, AusRegistry:The GAC Principles on new gTLDs was considered 
during the development of the PDP
  Liz Williams:The GAC was only involved because the parties at stake did not 
participate.  Now the GAC is involved because it helps with the special 
petitioning.
  Berry Cobb:Documentation of Rserved Names WG:  
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive-teams/2007/reserved-names-wg.htm%20
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Jeff has it right.  We also didn't have the 
benefit of the latest GAC advice at thiat earlier time.
  Liz Williams:The GAC advice is only ever advice for the ICANN Board.  The 
advice can be ignored by the Board (which it has done on numerous occassions).
  Donna Austin, AusRegistry:i understand the GAC will be developing a list of 
IGOs for protection based on the .int criteria, and it is their intention to 
have this work done before the delegation of new gTLDs
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Liz - sure, though the Board does not appear to 
have ignored this advice in its latest resolution.  And if if the GAC has 
written specifically to the GNSO on the issue, should we lightly disregard such 
advice in our working group deliberations?
  Jeff Neuman:@greg  - do you have some examples?
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Donna - that is my understanding also.
  Evan Leibovitch:@David receiving and choosing not to follow is not the same 
as "disregard". Thei is a bottom-up process, and the community as a whole is 
involved in the decisions. Pressure politics, designed to circumvent the 
overall community,  are to be resisted.
  avri:I agree with Evan.  The GAC advice does not have any controlling effect 
on the PDP.
  Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem is that this is the distinction the GAC gave 
us
  Jeff Neuman:After they did their research
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Is the "and" meant to require both treaty and 
statutory protection or a question of looking at either.  The answer to that 
greatly limits the scope off the bat, and perhaps inappropriately so.
  Liz Williams:no -- i support david maher's position.
  avri:i support david whcih ever that is
  avri:was not sure whether supporting david was agree or disagree.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):actually I did, changing entities to 
international organization in the first question
  avri:say mark agree if this or disagree wif that.
  avri:has the part of the Genva convention that says this been quoted 
somewhere?
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Hi Avri, I think it's been quoted many times in emails 
from Stephane Hankins of the ICRC.
  Greg Shatan:Claudia:  To answer your question about "and" -- I think that 
(unfortunately)  the intent is to require both a treaty and statutes to qualify 
for protection.  That is the basis of my objection to this language.
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO): In question three, should not be limited to 
names, but also include designations and acronyms  for consistency with the  
introduction.
  avri:Kiran:  i have read all those emails and never seen a definaitive quote 
that showed the names were bared by the treaty. Guess i missed it.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Greg, if that is the case, then it is a 
fundamental flaw.  Criteria are being set without any object reasoning for it.
  avri:Kiran:I have read that certain uses were disallowed, not that the names 
could NEVER be used.  but perhaps i did not understand the language.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Avri:  Footnote 1 on page 2 of the GAC letter to the GNSO 
dated September 14, 2011, which details GAC advice on protections of the RCRC 
and IOC gives the cite to the section of the Geneva Convention.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:other than that I can't comment on RC stuff.
  avri:Kiran: I wil have to reread that secotnion, but i remmeber a limiting 
certain uses, eg, on the battle field, and not that it could not be used  
otherwise.  but this is fodder for latter.  I just have problems with t what i 
think may be a mischaracterization of what the Geneva convention limits.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:I couldn't say, just trying to answer your question about 
where to find the information you seek.
  Evan Leibovitch:This WG now seems to have its own soundtrack
  Greg Shatan:Whoever just went on and off and on hold has "hold music" that is 
interfering with the call (beautiful though it may be).
  Evan Leibovitch:(different music from what I would have chosen, but so be 
it....)
  avri:will the URS exclude them?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg and David
  avri:This is the PDP, educating people is required.
  avri:we can't say oh, we told you already, dont ask again.
  David Opderbeck:Agree with Alan
  avri:We canot exlcude the community from the discussion!!!!
  Kiran Malancharuvil:the community is represented by the members of the 
working group
  Evan Leibovitch:@Kiran: dead wrong. This is not an elite. I fully intend to 
consult within my constituency.
  Alan Greenberg:@avri, my recollection is that the URS does include 
treaty-based protections.
  avri:thanks Alan, i thought it did, but i amnot a subject expert.  So the 
question obout beleiving the URS covers it makes a lot of sense.
  Berry Cobb:8.Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD 
program are adequate enough to offer protections to IGO and INGOs?
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Who said anything was elite?  There is 2 years of work 
behind this... we can't flippantly ask a question without an enormous amount of 
informaiton presented along with it.  If you want that, so be it.  We're happy 
to resubmit, but don't ask the question without the background information.
  avri:the PDP starting os back to zero.
  Evan Leibovitch:That's the price paid for re-opening the original policy.
  avri:... is back to zero.  what went before is prelude but and infoo or 
education needs to be included.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:so we are not to benefit from work previously performed?
  avri:yeah, please dont assume the community is ignorant.
  Elizabeth Finberg:But doesn't the term "special protection" mean protection 
above and beyond existing RPMs?
  avri:yes we nenfit, by having it presented again.  you dont need to prepare 
it anew, but it needs to be presented anew.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:please don't put words in my mouth.  that's 
counterproductive and villifying.
  Elizabeth Finberg:in other words, our starting point is necessarily the 
adequacy of exisiting RPMs
  Alan Greenberg:@Kiran, we cannot presume that previous DECISIONS are 
appropriate. If we did that, we would be honoring the original reserved names 
work. All previous work should be considered if applicable.
  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):agree with greg
  avri:that is one of the starting points.  if they are agequate for aLL the 
needs, then what do we need to do further.
  Berry Cobb: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 accommodate all IGOs and INGOs)?
  Kiran Malancharuvil:@Alan - the group is set to address the adequacy of RPMs, 
no one is suggesting that we take decisions as a starting point, only that we 
don't ask flippant questions without providing context.
  avri:Berry, works for me.
  Elizabeth Finberg:+1
  avri:Kiran: oh, we are flippant are we?
  Berry Cobb: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)?
  Kiran Malancharuvil:avri, give me a break.
  Thomas Rickert:What should criteria look like?They should be objectiveThey 
should be globally applicableThey should be easily and unambiguously 
verifiedThey should address what is special for the potential beneficiaries 
(i.e.  factors that apply to all rights holders do not help a lot.)
  avri:are we asking if the 'and' means 'or'
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I am.  If it is an and, the qualifying INGOs 
are immediately limited without any reasoning for do so.
  avri:i know of no time in logic where an 'and' can mean or.  I know of 
inclusivie and exclusive 'or'  but not  and.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):an and meanding both not either
  avri:either is or.
  Donna Austin, AusRegistry:I have to drop off the call.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):In other words, INGOS receiving protections 
under treaties and INGOs receiving protections under multiple jurisdictions
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg, this is fundamental.
  avri:as i say i studied philsophy/logic not law, but the meaning of 'and' was 
defined the same way in every truth tables i ever saw.
  avri:or are you asking a gramatical question.  if so shouldn't the 
punctuation be the defining criteria - i.e. grapgh the sentence.
  avri:i did not think the RCRC thought itself an INGO
  Greg Shatan:I like fish and chicken.  Does this mean I like fish and I like 
chicken, or does this mean that I only like the combination of fish and chicken?
  avri:in that case you have used parallel constrictiion and dai ilike both 
time.  that is a different sentence than i like fish anc chicken, simlar to i 
like gin and tonic.
  avri:sorry about the typos.  it is late in Dubai
  avri:i like X and i liek y, is not i like X and Y.
  avri:if i say i lke gin and tonic, do you assime i like gin and i like topic, 
or do you assume i like a mix of the two.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):To be clear, I am not asking this question as 
a philosophical exercise, but as an objection to any defintional limitation 
that is not based in discussed reasoning.
  avri:i am not answering as aphilosphical question.  i am used logic  and 
grammer to discover the answer.
  Cintra Sooknanan:@Greg 'and' in legal drafting usually means and/or
  Cintra Sooknanan:meaning both or either
  Cintra Sooknanan:whereas or just means either
  avri:this is not legal drafting.  and i thought they wrote and/or when that 
is what they meant.
  Greg Shatan:I think we need to clarify that that is the case here.  I think 
that others here would object to that construction (though I would prefer it.)
  Cintra Sooknanan:@ avri not always unfortuntately ... it's best to take a 
plain language meaning
  avri:if the langauge is not clear, the process of a WG requires we go back to 
the council for clarification.
  Greg Shatan:@avri: lawyers try to avoid and/or at all costs.  Some documents 
also include lengthy statements about interpreting "and".
  Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyoen
  Cintra Sooknanan:take care