[gnso-pro-wg] Approved Statement of Work

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,

Set forth below is the pertinent portion of the 15 March GNSO Council
minutes which includes, in particular, the approved Statement of Work.

Kristina

-*-


Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the 
working group on "Protecting the rights of others
Background

There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy 
recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In 
addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering
guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application 
process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry operators.

The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that Registered 
Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's

knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name, 
nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the

legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy 
called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is intended for

resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party over the 
registration and use of an Internet domain name.

In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to 
implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that 
infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent

inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply

with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and 
provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during

the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have 
been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to 
registrants and third parties affected by registration, and
effectiveness.

As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some 
discussion about what additional protections beyond the current terms in

the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms
should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the 
domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start 
up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive
as the "best" names.

Purpose:

The purpose of the working group is to:

(1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD 
operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and 
existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights 
of others during the domain name registration process, particularly 
during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for 
what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should 
identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The 
working group should establish definitions of terms used in this 
document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working

group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document, 
and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal
contexts.

(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach 
to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration 
agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the
domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start 
up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive

as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated 
into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants. 
The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process 
(PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.

Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan

I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms

A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)

B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms are designed

to solve and new issues that may have developed

C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Submission process and costs of submission

4. Review of applications

5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism

D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection 
mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Review of applications

4. Allocation

E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between preventing the 
dispute and resolving the dispute

1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues identified 
in I.B.

2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive 
registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of 
registrations that are purely defensive

3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of 
registrations; challenger success rate

4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues identified in
I.B.

F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness

1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any evaluation 
in light of issues identified in I.B.

2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period

3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a 
cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.

4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues identified in
I.B.

G. Impact on registries and registrars

1. Resource allocation

a) Development of rights protection mechanism

b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism

2. Other considerations

H. Impact on other affect parties

II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights 
protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.

A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances

B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances

1. Submission

2. Review

3. Challenge

C. Level of Satisfaction

1. Prior Rights Owners

2. Registrars

3. Registries

4. Other Categories

III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms

A. Feasibility

Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on 
registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner

and holders of other rights

B. Implementation Considerations

IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms

A. Alternatives

B. Evaluation

Suggested Working Group Membership

The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide

useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.

* Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
* INTA Internet Committee member
* Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
* Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
* Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
* Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns 
over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity
theft)
* IPC designee
* NCUC designee
* ISP designee
* BC designee
* WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing 
rights protection mechanisms)

1. Voting:

In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus 
approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most 
or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" 
should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on 
particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not 
have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless 
of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual 
nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership

The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO 
Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint 
non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the 
constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of 
the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate 
as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the 
two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. 
The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role 
of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the
effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and

consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important 
that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of 
members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that

have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced 
representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then 
have opportunity to act.

Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the 
next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted 
accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and 
the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the 
chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline

The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and 
to achieve the following targets:
1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon 
ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council 
meeting.

Timeline:

The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report 
for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007

Kristina Rosette proposed a procedural motion that the Council approve 
extending the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the 
Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the 
report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.

The motion passed by vote of acclamation.

Decision 3: The Council extended the timeline for the working group on 
the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, 
in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 
24 May 2007.