[gnso-igo-ingo] MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - 24 April 2013

[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 01 May 2013 at 16:00 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development 
Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday 24 April 2013 at 
1600 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130424-en.mp3

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

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


Attendees:
Lanre Ajayi - NCA
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Avri Doria - NCSG
Elizabeth Finberg - RySG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Robin Gross - NCSG
Stephane Hankins - NCSG
David Heasley - IPC/IOC
David Maher - RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC/IOC
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan - NCA
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair – RrSG


Apologies:
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Guilaine Fournet – (IEC)


ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Brian Peck
Julia Charvolen


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

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julia Charvolen
*************

Adobe Chat transcript for 24 April 2013:

 Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 24 APR 2013 IGO-INGO Protections WG Call.
  Alan Greenberg:On Whois call. Will join here soon
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):We are on the audio bridge as well.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I can hear the audio on the adobe connect.
  Alan Greenberg:On now
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Once again, the IOC is NOT asking for protection of 
the acronyms.
  Avri Doria:sorry i am late had to rebbot.
  Julia Charvolen:Mary Wong joined the meeting
  Mary Wong:Sorry I joined late and will have to leave early (smthg came up at 
work). Glad Avri is on for NCSG/NCUC.
  David Roache-Turner:Hi all - sorry for the late arrival.
  Alan Greenberg:dID OUR REQUEST TO gc INCLUDE ingoS?
  Alan Greenberg:Sorry for case...
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg - I think it's unfair to characterize the IOC 
as a "squeaky wheel." We have a solid, and unique LEGAL position on which we 
have based our request for protection.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Thomas, are you saying there is broad support 
for protecting IOC/RC and IGOs?
  Avri Doria:one can be both uniquely legal and squeaky
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):+1 David
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I cannot agree that there is such broad 
support.
  Avri Doria:certainly NCSG is not part of any broad support.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Calling an organization a "squeaky wheel" implies 
that the protection is based solely on annoyance, rather than on a rational 
basis.  But point taken Avri.
  Mary Wong:And "support" should mean support of the ICANN community (SOs, 
ACs). Not quite the same thing as support from WG members (which will itself be 
reflected in the consensus call on the actual recs.)
  Greg Shatan:@Kiran: I'm not questioning most of the merits of IOC's case, 
although I question the "uniqueness" aspect. of it..  I think you should take 
"squeaky wheel" as a compliment; you've done a good job for your client..  And 
I disagree with your characterization of what a "squeaky wheel" is.   And your 
+1 does a good job of trying to shut the door behind you.
  elizabeth finberg:I just joined the call.
  Mason Cole 2:@Mary, you make a good point.  This eventually will have to come 
to a vote.
  Avri Doria:a vote.  I though we worked on consensus basis where the chair 
tryies find the level of support.  strong support, rough consensus, full 
consensus etc.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If our work on defining the pool of INGOs and 
IGOs is not fininshed, I finid it hard to say there is broad support for 
protection as it stands.
  Avri Doria:i mean "a vote???"
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Agreeing with David's comments that the language of 
the RySG proposal merely states that there is no evidence in the GC response... 
is not actually shutting the door behind us Greg.  And I'm really not sure that 
characterizing someone as a squeaky wheel can ever be considered a compliment.  
But certainly this  is a silly side point.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We are not bound by GAC advice, and neither 
is the Board.  We should avoid the impression of creating consensus or broad 
support if that is not the case.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Claudia, why do you think that the Board isn't 
bound by GAC advice?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I should say creating the impression of 
consensus.
  Avri Doria:Kiran, becasue the bylaws 9and i understand CAlifornai law but Ia 
m not a lawyer so what do i know) specifically say the Board is not bound by 
GAC advice.  it needs to consider it according to a process, but it is not 
bound.
  David Roache-Turner:And if the Board would ever not follow GAC advice, I 
believe it would be bound to provide reasons for that.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):The Board has already indicated some 
problematic issues with the GAC Advice.   We certainly should not ignore these.
  Chuck Gomes (Verisign):I agree with Claudia that the Board is not bound to 
follow GAC advice but if they do not follow it there are procedures to follow.
  Mary Wong:Bylaws are very clear - Board not bound by GAC Advice but must give 
rationale if they don't follow it. That's why the AGB had to specify the 
"presumption" that GA Advice be followed if the GAC consensus is not to approve 
a particular new gTLD app.
  Avri Doria:David, indeed if they don't follow the advise the need to both 
consult with the GAc and publish their reasons for not following.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Not only are there procedures to be followed, but 
both organizations must enter into good faith discussions about compromise.  
They are not just allowed to reject GAC advice.
  Avri Doria:Kiran, right, but that does not constitue being bound.
  Avri Doria:they are bound to consider.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):indeed, and I never said tthey were bound, I merely 
asked Claudia a question.  Indeed, they are bound to consider in good faith.
  Avri Doria:true but "Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC): Claudia, why do you think 
that the Board isn't bound by GAC advice? "
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):which is a question?
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):am I wrong??
  Greg Shatan:Wrong about what?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I found this interesting.  Attributed to 
Chris Disspain, "The board believes that all these issues make it extremely 
difficult, if not impossible, to accept the advice as is. Rather than rejecting 
this advice we seek an acknowledgement from the GAC in its communique that 
there are issues to be worked through, and we seek agreement with the GAC that 
they will work with the board and staff on these issues from now until Durban 
[this July] when the board will make a decision?"
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg - that my question to Claudia was, in fact, a 
question.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Claudia - Taken in context, Chris is ONLY speaking 
abotu IGOs, not the IOC/RCRC, as a point of clarification.
  Julia Charvolen:Robin Gross joined the meeting
  Greg Shatan:@Kiran - It seemed like a challenge in the form of a question, 
i.e., that you were asking from a POV.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Please, we have enough issues in the group without 
reading vitriol into chat commentary.
  Greg Shatan:No vitriol, just a point of view.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Just refrain from reading anything in, please.  It 
was a question.  I am not shy about expressing points of view as such.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):From our point of view, in addition to 
appropriately defining the pool of specially protected organizations, any 
special protection should avoid consent-based mechanisms, in so far as 
long-standing rights holders would need to apply to an protected organization 
for permission to use a name on the internet.
  David Roache-Turner:Just to reiterate that the IGO's would also support an 
approach based on the precedent existing for country and territory names, which 
as CHuck mentioned also includes a mechanism in it  for obtaining agreement of 
thr relevant government, subject to GAC and Baord review.
  Avri Doria:yes i would oppose it.
  Alan Greenberg:Avri's comment reminds me, the ALAC has stated strongly that 
there is no need for protection at the top level. If the existing objection 
processes are not sufficient for this, then we should invent a new one.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Avri's comments make me wonder whethere there 
would be broader support for weaker protections, including fee waivers, claims 
notices, etc.  for both IGOs and INGOs.
  David Roache-Turner:From an IGO perspective, if we end up going down the TMCH 
route, it would be important for IGOs that any exception process would be based 
on appropriately objective criteria, making reasonable allowance for 
potentially legitimate registrants of domain names which correspond to 
protected IGO acronyms to register such domains, but which also does not open 
the door to  potentially abusive registrations across all new gTLDs where 
demonstrated legitimate interests and non-abusive use would be lacking.  
Simplicity , proportionality and cost-neutrality would also be  important  
considerations.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Agreed David R-T
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree that balancing potential  for gaming 
with the existence of legitimate interests is important.  And I would add, it's 
also important that any recommendation would serve to protect existing rights 
not augment them.
  Mason Cole:Just so I'm clear, are we now discussing "c" in the RySG document?
  Mason Cole:Seems like we're migrating around
  Berry Cobb:We are discussing Top Level Protections in general, not to any 
point on the RySG proposal.
  Mason Cole:That's what I thought we were focused on.  Taking my hand down 
then.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg, I want to avoid any misunderstanding by 
those reading the transcript or listening to the recording. This is your 
personal view, right and not the views of the IPC?
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):*chat transcript as well
  Greg Shatan:My opinions are my own and do not represent the views of the IPC, 
which has not yet taken a position.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Thanks, Greg
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):The GAC didn't approach ISO.  (Nor the IEC, 
as I understand it.)
  Greg Shatan:@Kiran, Can you clarify where your views should be attributed?
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):IOC, as my name is "Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC)" and 
I am listed as a representative from the IOC on all group documents.
  Greg Shatan:@Kiran, Thanks.  I thought so but didn't want to assume.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I'm not sure how widespread these issues 
among INGOs is.  Which is quite unfortunate,  especially since it would be our 
hope that any special protection would consider the public interest , among 
other legal reasons.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):No problem, Greg!
  Mary Wong:@Mason, +1.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Alan.
  Mary Wong:Although NCUC has not fully discussed the Ry SG proposal, I'm 
fairly confident that the group will not support protection for acronyms, even 
under a TMCH-like mechanism.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Mary, do you suppose that would include any 
protection, including a claims notice, for example?
  David Roache-Turner:+1 Alan
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):LOL, well said Alan
  Mary Wong:@Claudia, I don't know. I think much could depend on the details - 
e.g. where the IGO list ends, and what exactly is the TMCH mechanism in 
question (e.g. sunrise vs. claims vs. URS).
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Sure, thanks, Mary.
  Mary Wong:For instance, a limited, closed list of IGOs with just a claims 
notice might work.
  Mary Wong:(but this is just my view, not that of the group's)
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Mason.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Are IGO acronyms assigned to a trademark 
class?
  Mary Wong:I cannot see NCUC supporting anything other than an exact match of 
an acronym (even assuming that there is support for a limited TMCH mechanism). 
I also think claims rather than sunrise, plus a URS, could be more aceptable.
  Greg Shatan:@Avri: The "50 variants" would only come into play to the extent 
WHO (in your example) fought and won legal battles over particular variants.
  David Roache-Turner:Agree with Mason also: at root, its about getting the 
balance right between legitimate and illegitimate users of domain names which 
ultimately correspond to a protected IGO acronym.  We need a workable mechanism 
to manage potential co-existence with other legitimate right holders, but it 
needs to be a simple, cost-neutral and operationally feasible also.  It is also 
important to bear in mind (especially for any TMCH-based approach) that the 
protection of IGO acronmys are not the same as trademark rights.  Also, TMCH 
claims are predicated on curative access, would not provide a solution to IGO 
lack of access to the UDRP;  the latter is hardly like to be something that 
could be quickly or easily redressed for purposes of timely protection before 
any new gTLDs would launch.
  Mason Cole:Alan, +1 for the RrSG
  Mary Wong:@Thomas, I understand. Contextually, though, 2 things: (1) Registry 
operators are free to design additional RPMs beyond what ICANN recommends (and 
we know they are/will); and (2) the more certainty there is with the actual IGO 
list, the more limited (and therefore balanced/apprropriate) the RPM at issue, 
e.g. sunrise.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Well said Greg.
  Mary Wong:All, my apologies that I have to ring off at this juncture. Will 
follow along on email and transcript. Thx!
  Thomas Rickert:I have to close the cue now!
  Thomas Rickert:queue :-)
  Alan Greenberg:We have not waived the TMCH entry requirements. We have 
replaced having a volid TM with being on a GAC list.
  Avri Doria:i understan that.
  Berry Cobb:If no names wind up on the Reserved List, there is no need for 
RSEP.
  Avri Doria:i think being on a reserved list should be a pretty definite thing 
nd not easily undone.
  David Roache-Turner:Just to note that because IGOs do not have standing as 
such under the UDRP (itself not a quick or easy issue to timely resolve), in 
practical terms would likely be  difficult in practice to supply UDRP decisions 
in their favor regarding any attemp to access the 50+ CS strings now 
contemplated under the TMCH
  Greg Shatan:Agree with Alan.
  Berry Cobb:As for Claims notice output, protected org could use curative 
mechanisims URS and UDRP.  Or at first monitor use of the acronym name, and if 
determined bad-faith use, utilize URS and UDRP
  David Roache-Turner:THe GAC advice do come predicated on objective criteria...
  Avri Doria:Berry, yes, and if someone wants the name on the reserved list, 
there it shold stay unless there is a really good reason.
  Alan Greenberg:I am in the air and will not be on the call.
  Berry Cobb:I will send a reminder for temp-chair to the list.  If no one 
volunteers, Staff can help manage the call.
  Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):I volunteer Berry and Brian.  ;)
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Kiran, to the degree they accept.
  Berry Cobb:Great meeting today!  Thank you everyone.
  Avri Doria:i tink we sould take next week off.