RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE 2013 @ 16:00 UTC

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Avri.  Any harm that any IGO can actually show from operation
of existing TLDs over the past 20 years would also be relevant to this
discussion about purported likely harm in future TLDs.  In particular, how
has any IGO ever suffered in any way from anyone else's legitimate use of
the IGO's purported acronym?  Without some evidence of past harm, there can
be no justification for future protection.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:17 PM
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE
2013 @ 16:00 UTC


Hi,

In any case it needs to be mentioned in the initial report, even if just as
a amrker of work yet to be done.

And you are right, what I stated is  a principle I think we should always
adhere to, the fairness principle.  But it is not the result of any
conversations we have had.  On the issues of this particular group, it is
easy for the incumbents to agree on all sorts of requirements for new gTLDs,
that they themselves don't have to deal with.  It is for this reason that I
always try to keep the fairness principle foremost in my mind.

I do disagree with you on deciding first what happens to the new gTLDS
without also deciding on how the incumbents will meet the same requirements.
I am assuming that for every protection that is being argued for, there is
an equivalent argument for why it is needed on the incumbent TLDs.  After
all, any harm they have shown, only exists in the incumbents as an
actuality.  Everywhere else it is merely possible.

avri

On 12 Jun 2013, at 00:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> I do not belive that we have spent any substantive time on if/how any
protections we recommend should apply to existing TLDs. Your assumption that
all protections must find an equivalent expression in existing TLDs is a
possible outcome, but I don't think we can assume it as a premise.
> 
> A possible answer to "determine how incumbent registries should meet the
new policy recommendations, if any" is "not at all". I'm not saying that
this is a preferred answer from my point of view, just that it is a possible
answer.
> 
> On a process level, it makes some sense to defer the discussion until we
actually have closure on the new gTLD protections, although it does make
sense to keep in mind that eventually we will need to look at the existing
TLDs as well. Presuming we will come to closure....
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 11/06/2013 10:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks that is the one I was looking at.  Wanted to make sure it was the
latst and greatest.
>> 
>> I ,ay be missing it, but I see nothing about the pending charter work
item we have not touched yet which is the implication of any new special
consideration and how they would be effected on incumbent registries.
>> 
>> Perhaps I am still missing it.  It seems to me that anything that we
impose on new gTLDS must find equivalent expression in existing gTLDs,
though the means and time tables may be different.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 19:17, Berry Cobb wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi Avri,
>> >
>> > Here is the version that includes both Chuck's and Greg's comments 
>> > and suggested changes.  Please use the attached to include any 
>> > suggested edits you may have.
>> >
>> > Thank you.  B
>> >
>> > Berry Cobb
>> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> > 720.839.5735
>> > mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > @berrycobb
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx 
>> > [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
>> > On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 16:02
>> > To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 
>> > 12 JUNE
>> > 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have lost track of the draft of record again:
>> > Which is the draft of the report that we are reviewing? URL?
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8 Jun 2013, at 15:00, Berry Cobb wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IGO-INGO PDP 
>> >> Working
>> > Group meeting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 12 JUNE 2013 @ 16:00 UTC 
>> >> (120
>> > Min):
>> >> 1.     Roll Call / SOI Update
>> >> 2.     Review Initial Report and ready for public comment
>> >> 3.     Discussion of Next Steps
>> >> 4.     Confirm next meeting (19 June 2013 @ 16:00 (120 MIN))
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you.  B
>> >>
>> >> Berry Cobb
>> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> >> 720.839.5735
>> >> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> @berrycobb
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <IGO-INGO_Initial_Report_v0 9 3 with Gomes and Shatan edits.DOCX>
> 
>