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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My point was not that isn't harm.  There may or may not be harm depending on 
how you define it, and I acknowledge that lots of groups have shown what they 
consider to be harm.  I do not think we have all accepted the same definitions 
or beleive that there is the same degree of harm in the activities that have 
been described.

But that was not my point.

Mine was that any harm that may or may not exist, exists in the current TLDs 
and that therefore all protections considered for new gTLDs, must be applied to 
existing gTLDs.  What I do not think passes the fairness principle is setting 
rules for new gTLDs that are not applicable to existing gTLDs.  I therefore 
beleive that before deciding on any new special considerations in the PDP, we 
need to look at how they could be applied to the existing gTLDs.

avri

On 12 Jun 2013, at 06:21, Roache-Turner, David 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.
> 
>