[gnso-igo-ingo] MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - 20 February 2013

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next call for the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) 
Working Group is scheduled on Wednesday 27 February at 19:00 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development 
Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday 20 February 2013 
at 1700 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130221-en.mp3

On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/


Attendees:
Jim Bikoff - IPC/IOC
Avri Doria - NCSG
Chuck Gomes - RySG
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
Catherine Gribbin - Red Cross
Stephane Hankins - NCSG
David Heasley - IPC/IOC
Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC/IOC
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
Thomas Rickert - NCA -Working group chair
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit - ISO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair - RrSG
Lanre Ajayi - NCA
Debra Hughes - NPOC
Wolfgang Kleinwachter - NCSG
Ricardo Guilherme - RySG
Joanne Teng - WIPO ( standing in for David Roache-Turner)
Sam Paltridge - OECD



Apologies:
Iliya Bazlyankov - RrSG
Evan Leibovitch - ALAC
Paul Diaz - RySG
Guilaine Fournet - (IEC)
Alain Berranger - NPOC

ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Nathalie Peregrine


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

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Nathalie
*************

Adobe Chat transcript for 20 February 2013:


  Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 20 FEB 2013 IGO-INGO Conference call.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):HI Berry and Nathalie - I will be absent for a few 
minutes but should re-join shortly

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Noted Ricardo.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):back

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Good afternoon, Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and myself on 
the call as well as in chat.

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks!

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Thank you Kiran, noted!

  Alan Greenberg:Waiting to get on...

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Mary Wong has joined the AC room

  Alan Greenberg:on now

  Mary Wong:Me too (sorry, was waiting for the operator for a while)

  Avri Doria:misserd it was on mute.  ok, another time.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Stephane Hankins has joined the call

  Alan Greenberg:Thomas, you are saying General Council/Counsel in stead of 
GNSO Council.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Debra Hughes has joined the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Iliya Bazlyankov sends apologies for this call

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):@Alan - it's against the law to 
cybersquat using someone else's words/marks.

  Berry Cobb:http://www.wto.com is the biggest example of "claiming to be" or 
confusing as to whether the page is that of WTO or not.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Kiran here.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):Also, regarding Avri's comment, just 
because an organization controls a number of domain names acros multiple TLDs 
doesn't mean we are not harmed by that.  The need for defensive registration is 
a harm.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Exactly Kiran.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):+1 to IOC's remarks above

  Avri Doria:I understand that some feel the existsnce of Harm is not a 
necessary condition.  Some on the other hand do beleive it is a necessary 
condition.  We have yet to detemrine that it is a violation of law,   or to 
what degree it is a violation of law.  Exactly what is the violation of law: 
the full name, an infixx/suffix/prefix usage, a typo based defintion?  Are they 
all violations of law?  If so please someone shows us this law and the 
specifics that support these broad interpretations.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We have provided a lot of guidance on 
these questions, but are waiting for the GC to answer the questions as no one 
seems to take the organizations' word for it.  Incidentally, it is not just 
that we don't "believe" that a showing of actual harm is a necessary condition, 
but rather that the law does not require such a showing.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):+1 Ricardo

  Debra Hughes:I encourage the group to consider that this chart doesn't 
capture domain names that were obtained from third parties or subject to 
previous enforcement action; also the harm ifor RCRC is the allocation of 
resources (personal/financial) to manage abuses that should not have been 
allows under the GC in the first instance.

  Avri Doria:The law may not require it in some specific case or uses.  And it 
may not require it for some IGO/INGO etc...  Are you claiming that the Law 
exempts the necessary showing of harm in ICANN policy for all usages and all 
IGO/INGO?

  Avri Doria:Whatever Law protects, the law protects.  For the rest policy must 
determine what is or is not necessary for special protection.  Harm may be a 
necessary element for policy.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):I would refer you back to the laws cited 
by each individual organization in question to answer your questions.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Mary

  Avri Doria:For anyting that is law determined, the local law must be enforced 
on the Registry or Registrar.  Policy is only required for those things not 
covered by law, or the same law, in localities for which there is a law.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):What are we asking for that is not 
covered by law?  That question can only be answered to the group's satisfaction 
by the GC.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):and even then, maybe not to the group's 
satisfaction.

  Avri Doria:Ok, so no one is asking for anyting not coverd by Law?

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:I disagree.

  Avri Doria:so why is this not a legal case?

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):No one?  I believe I've made it clear 
(at your request) that I only represent the IOC.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We have cited the law for every position 
that we take.  Speaking ONLY for the IOC.

  Avri Doria:so the issue is relevant to the policy group.  i thought yu were 
maintaing that the issue was not important becasue of the law.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):you have misunderstood.

  Avri Doria:I beleive any Registry or Registra that is beaking their national 
law vis a vis IOC should be taken to court.  We are not about the nefocement of 
law, that is for the courts.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):that is an interesting view, thanks for 
sharing it.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Sam Paltridge has joined the AC room

  Avri Doria:Kieren, you are quite welcome.  ICANN is not LEA, it is a policy 
organization that attempts to provide a refulatory function based on a 
multistakeholder process of policy development.

  Avri Doria:s/refulatory/regulatory/

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):(*Kiran) - ICANN is required to follow 
applicable laws.

  Avri Doria:Kieran, and I am sure they will once those laws have been cleary 
shown.  Of course, the Registrars and Registries are in different 
jurisdictions, so there is alwasy a question of which law,, and which 
interpretation of the law must be followed.

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):(*Kiran - no "e") -  looking forward to 
the GC response.

  Avri Doria:apologies for my spelling.

  Avri Doria:Kiran, I look forward to it as well.

  Avri Doria:I've got my bets down on a verdict of 'no applicable law 
determining the illegality of the use of a string in a domain name."  but i am 
not a lawyer and I often lose my bets.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Support Mary's discussion

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Fully support the comments just made by Ricardo - 
indeed important that we continue to bear in mind in our deliberations that 
IGOs are a distinct and limited category of entity with names and 
acronymsprotected under internatinal law- and the quantum of the discussions 
fromsome years agao have been materailly impacted by ICANNs decision to 
massively expand the DNS, which adds weight to the need to revisit ICANN 
decisions of past years.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):fruit salad

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:If some organizations can rely on per se 
reservation of thier names on the basis of existing legal protections, then 
there is no need for criteria for them.  We can spend our time discussing 
criteria for other IOs.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):fully agree with claudia

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):+1 Claudia

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):...and again very with the spirit of the 
intervention just made by ricardo

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):wrong, Alan

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):GAC proposal is for criteria and list

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):it is not supposed to be a closed list, it's based on 
specific objective criteria

  Avri Doria:I actually beleive that is ok to come up with a list that is 
broader than the GAC's, if that is the right thing to do.  And if we are 
talking about things like clearing houses, challenges and dispute resolution, i 
think it may even be possible.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):right, it may need to be reviewed from time to tim 
- and in particular, criteria based on .int eligibility criteria + IGO funds 
and programs plus a list of a number IGOs which have been identified as meeting 
those criteria

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):names AND acronyms

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):For IGOS in the GAC, IGO name plus acronymn

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Under the Paris convention, it is the name and 
acronymn which the IGO has communicated to the 6ter list

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:The name should be protected in law, e.g., under 
trademark law or other national statutes.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Just as an analagous example, protections already 
granted under the reserve list for UN Member countries, are protected in the UN 
languages

  wolfgang:what do you do if two lorgs have the same acronym: IOC is 
International Olympic Committeee ande the Intergovernmental Oceanographic 
Commission.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):correct, David

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):neither can be registered by third parties

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):@Wolfgang - I see that you have made 
this argument and given this example many many times in the past.  Again, to be 
crystal clear, the IOC does not seek protection for acronyms.  Thanks.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Mary1

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):anyway, possibiliy for cooexistence should not of 
itself be a reason not to preclude third party registration of domains that 
would be an exact match of an IGO name or acronymn

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):in practice, we are talking here about a pool of 
hundreds of domain names  that could correspond in this exact way, as  against  
the  virtually limited number out there , especially in an expanded DNS

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):the Olympic Charter specifically mentions that the 
IOC is an international, non-governmental organization whose members are 
NATURAL persons

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Greg, ISO (the International Organization for 
Standardization) is an INGO, and one of the some 140 NGOs  with General 
Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:I believe the IEC is also a formal member of the 
group.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):more impirtant to get it right, than get it early!

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):absolutely

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):anybody = third parties

  Mary Wong:A large majority of NCUC members would oppose blocking.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):absolutely

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):my "absolutely" was to David's remark

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):what I said was "anybody=third parties"

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We agree with that proposal, Thomas

  wolfgang:I oppose blocking as well

  Mason Cole:oppose blocking

  Avri Doria:i oppose all blocking.

  Lanre Ajayi:I also oppose blocking

  Avri Doria:whereas i support curative processes.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):no curative processes for UPU (and other IGOs)

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):exact matches based on blocking third party 
registration of IGO names and acronmyns other than with IGO consent would work 
- IGO consent to allow for potential cases of legitimate use

  Avri Doria:i also suppor a recommendaion that induces specific regisries o 
voluntarily block.  i would recommend ha regisries consider voluntary blocking.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):+1 David

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):we need to bear in mind we are talking of blocking 
tghe smallest handful of domain names potentially availble in the DNS overall

  Mason Cole:need to ring off -- thanks everyone

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):comparable in some ways to country names and 
territories

  Avri Doria:there is blocking and there are exclusive reservations.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):prevention against sthird party registration may 
be better than blcoking - IGOs mayh also want to use their own names or acronmys

  Mary Wong:@David, it would have to be that type of justification (and of that 
magnitude/level) to justify any form of blocking.

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):exactly Thomas

  Mary Wong:+1 to Claudia's suggestion - building on Avri's point on voluntary 
blocks by registries, it could be a good balance of interests here.

  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:.NGO would be one example would be one TLD where 
INGOs would be particularly wary.

  Mary Wong:@Claudia, that's what I was thinking too.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):I have to leave in a couple of mins, thanks to all

  wolfgang:I have to leave in five minutes.

  wolfgang:w

  Kiran Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):Thanks.

  Ricardo Guilherme (UPU):thank you Thomas

  Mary Wong:Thanks, as always, Thomas and everyone!

  David Roache-Turner (WIPO):thanks all

  Nathalie  Peregrine:thank you!