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

[Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@xxxxxxx>]

Hello David,

Your observations and thoughts  are well noted I wish to reemphasis your
point on "question of appropriate protection within the existing gTLD space
at some point, as that is within the group's mandate"  This is an issue
that I think we should observe well as you rightly mentioned.

Much appreciated on your comments

Poncelet


On 12 June 2013 10:21, Roache-Turner, David <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> Dear All,
>
> I believe we have been over the issue of past harm within existing gTLDs
> during earlier WG deliberations, and have had good exchanges on that.
>
> From an IGO perspective, it of course the illegitimate use of the IGO
> acronym that is of particular concern - for example, of the type we saw
> indicated in red and yellow in so many of the examples of existing
> registrations of exact match IGO acronyms, and the questionable use being
> made of those domain name names, in the survey of potential ("red" and
> "yellow" level) abuse indicated in the report previously prepared for the
> group by ICANN staff.  There are other, long-standing examples of concern
> to IGO also, some of which have been touched on in earlier submissions and
> deliberations.
>
> Berry, if necessary would it be possible to re-circulate that earlier
> staff survey for the information of those in the group who may not have
> been involved in those earlier deliberations?
>
> The issue of how best to accommodate potentially legitimate use of exact
> match IGOs by third party registrants should be distinguished from the
> question of whether examples of past harm exist, which IGOs submit is
> certainly the case based on the evidence and submissions examined thus far
> by the group.
>
> I think we will need to look at the question of appropriate protection
> within the existing gTLD space at some point, as that is within the group's
> mandate, but would submit that this need not hold up progress on work being
> done in connection with protection appropriate for new gTLDs (in which
> there have not yet been any second-level registrations to potentially
> complicate the matter).
>
> Best,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: mercredi 12 juin 2013 09:55
> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'GNSO IGO INGO'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE
> 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>
>
> 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>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*