[alac] GNSO Council call notes
- To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [alac] GNSO Council call notes
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:12:45 +0200
A couple of notes from today's GNSO Council call:
- ACTION ITEM: Prioritize UDRP issues within next 30 days.
- WIPO2 update: Tonkin has contacted Twomey. There will be
approximately 6 members from GAC on WIPO2 working group; president
has asked GNSO to nominate 6 people to join the working group.
Tonkin recommends one nomination from each of the constituencies.
Neumann (registries) asks about purpose of group -- implement,
recommend whether to implement; has heared strong opposition even
from IP owners. Scope of group? Amadeu: Not working group to
implement, but to raise issues -- implementable or not? If yes,
how? If no, why not? Implications? Reception within ICANN
process of external advice. Stubbs: Be sure not to make policy at
this point. Study *possible* impact. Milton: Procedural
concerns; ad hoc procedures; policy-development has to happen
within GNSO. Group should be relabeled as "study group". Suggests
to delegate one member to represent council's broad consensus.
Tonkin: Part of exercise to explain council's position to GAC, and
how council arrived at that position. Better to set 6 members.
Neumann: Implementation of wipo2 only possible through GNSO
consensus process. Members sent to committee must reinforce that.
Maybe nobody has explained need for consensus to GAC. Policy
won't take effect without consensus process. Redemption grace
period -- voluntary implementation. Don't expect that with
respect to wipo2. Council members v. constituency members?
Tonkin: No restriction. Council nominates 6 people. Delegate to
constituencies to nominate their preferred person. Amadeu:
Possible outcome of president's group is to defer complicated
questions raised by WIPO2 to relevant bodies outside ICANN before
this goes into policy-development process. Don't send just one
person; lots of pressure behind wipo2. Send people with strong
legal background on trademarks, udrp, internet law. Marilyn: New
challenge; have to create new process. Make sure that there is
good and agreed to understanding about scope of group. Tonkin
will seek clarification from Twomey; from what he hears, group is
similar to WHOIS steering group. Pre-filter to eventual
policy-development process. No deadline from Twomey.
Resolution: Ask constituencies to nominate one person each for
group. Milton seconds. Unanimously accepted.
- UDRP discussion. Tonkin suggests steering committee like what's
being done with respect to WHOIS. Marilyn: Recommends quick
process of prioritization. Then move ahead with PDP that focuses
on priority items. Sheppard: Practical suggestion. Initially
engage on enforcement recommendation; look at prioritization
separately. Amadeu: Comments on one issue (don't understand him).
Takes exception to staff's recommendation not to deal with
substantial issues on mission and core value grounds. Does not
accept characterization in report. Neumann: Clarification -- just
ask that final five recommendations be sent to group? Tonkin: No.
Neumann: Before you do anything, need to determine whether in
scope? Definitive answers. Amadeu: That's done in staff report.
Neumann: More guidance needed. Tonkin: First let constituencies
do prioritization. Start with 3 or 5 issues. Neumann: Just
submit comments? Tonkin: Could be a way. Have top 5 issues
listed, tabluate. My comments: Remarks on scope; prefer
discussion for prioritization over exchange of written rules.
Tonkin: Could use ALAC outreach to individual users; asks what we
are doing (answer: Not much, lack of time, have people with
expertise, interested in being involved, will do more in future).
Milton: Scope -- changing ICANN-declared policy is being declared
out of scope. 20% of udrp decisions cover common law marks -- why
is clarification out of scope? Same with respect to confusing
similarity. Decision databases -- not a policy issue. Public
availability of filings not a priority. Doesn't hear lots of
agitation. Not a major issue on the original UDRP working group.
Amending filings is major issue. Appeals important; more
substantive than anything else. Review of accreditation of
providers is missing from list. Provider could become openly
corrupt, no defined procedure for deaccrediting them. Deterrents
to reverse domain name hijacking? ... Tonkin, summary: People not
comfortable with prioritization done by ICANN staff.
Prioritization process. Identify priorities, then discuss scope
issues with general counsel.
Resolution: GNSO Council requests constituencies to review list of
issues in staff manager's report to identify top 5 issues from the
report. Report back in 30 days time. Constituency positions will
be collated by secretariat. Unanimous.
- WHOIS Steering Group update. Tonkin chaired meeting last week.
Minutes posted. Steering group went through similar process to
what was just described; top 5 issues. Top: Issue 5 (awareness);
data mining; have requested formal review and report back. Will
collate those. High-level group chaired by Twomey has requested
that consituencies review current CRISP requirements document.
Identification of "critical" data elements for each constituency.
- Council structure. Number of representatives. Council review.
Marilyn repeatedly calls for *self*-assessment of the council as
opposed to outside review; points to bottom-up structure of ICANN;
participation of council in establishing criteria for review.
- Budget committee report. Council thanks Cochetti for chairing
- Other business: Practical problems introducing new TLDs (the
crappy heuristics problem). Neumann: Outreach! Tonkin: Reminds
him of y2k. Suspects similar problems with recently-added ccTLDs.
Big issue of outreach. Need simple problem statement. ICANN
advisory? RFC? Harris: Latin American ISPs are going to meet.
Can discuss there. (Further discussion on what to do.)
Thomas Roessler <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>