Reasonable yes, possible no. Pesky little thing called the ICANN Bylaws. The decision to go forward with an IRP will have to be made prior to the resolution of any sort of PDP process. That said, we're not even at the point yet where a decision about an IRP needs to be made.<div>
<br></div><div>The next step towards an IRP is asking for a CEP to be started. The Cooperative Engagement Process, per article IV, section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws, attempts to solve the issue at contention through a process of formal negotiation prior to the commencement of an IRP action. It is valuable in it's own right, as well as being necessary to limit our financial liability vis a vis the Board should we proceed with an IRP. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, it is more than reasonable to separately also commence a PDP on the matter. However, let's not mistake this for being a political issue. It's nice to have friends, it's nicer to be right. The IRP is a legal process, not a political process. The determination as to whether to ho forward with an IRP should not be made with reference to how popular our effort is with fellow members of the Community, but rather needs to be a cold hearted decision about our chances of actually winning the action. Until the CEP is concluded we can not, nor should we, make such a calculation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We need to send notification of our intent to proceed with the CEP no later than July 17th. We should do so. The CEP, not a PDF, is the antecedent needed prior to the IRP. A PDF would also be welcome on a separate, dual track approach to knocking back this horrible, both in terms of policy and of procedure, decision.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Seems reasonable to me. It does let the staff off the hook but it is certainly a less costly way to challenge the result than an IRP.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="13faa35d2409d9c0__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>William Drake<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 4, 2013 1:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN Board dismisses NCSG reconsideration request on ICANN violating process by adopting TM+50 policy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Marie-Laure and would think pushing this in Council is a good antecedent step before trying for an IRP, inter alia as it would de-bilateralize things a bit and force some clarification of whether, upon reflection, anyone else
is with us. It'd also provide a clear operational plan for Durban, given that we'll be a bit short handed with respect to pursuing alternatives. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jul 4, 2013, at 3:22 AM, marie-laure Lemineur <<a href="mailto:mllemineur@gmail.com" target="_blank">mllemineur@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just an idea.....I don´t know if it is a good one but.....While I was reading the recommendation of the BGC, and bearing in mind what we discussed yesterday during our conference call, it struck me that we could follow the BGC suggestion/idea
as quoted p.11 :<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT","serif"">"Third, the Chair of the GNSO Council’s response that the previously abusive name issue is “best addressed as a policy concern” does not mean that staff has done more than implementation or that staff
has contradicted an existing policy or process. Instead it actually confirms the absence of clear Policy from the GNSO beyond Recommendation 3. The staff approach was conservative, and there is nothing that cannot be undone.<b> The GNSO is free to initiate
a Policy Development Process in this area to recommend a new Policy. If such GNSO Policy concurs with the current implementation approach, then there should be no issue.
<u>If an eventual adopted Policy does not agree with the current approach, the approach can be overturned.</u></b><u>"</u></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT","serif"">Request a new PDP on the matter...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT","serif"">Of course, this does not exclude that we can also move forward in parallel and file for an Independent Review Panel OR we can decide to choose the new PDP option/strategy and forget about the Panel Review....</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT","serif"">Best, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT","serif"">Marie-laure</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN New gtld program committee adopted BGC's revised rationale dismissing NCSG's request for reconsideration. We should file for an Independent Review Panel determination and ask ICANN and/or the arbitrators to waive our costs, which
are otherwise prohibitive. There is no accountability "within" ICANN, as this situation has demonstrated. We need to go outside of ICANN to get any constraints on ICANN's lawlessness. - Robin<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2 July 2013 - Resolution Approved by ICANN Board New GTLD Cmte:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm#1.a" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm#1.a</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<h4 style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:15.75pt">
<span style="font-family:"Klavika Basic","serif";color:#555555">Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3<u></u><u></u></span></h4>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:17.4pt">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#555555">Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark
Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names".<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:17.4pt">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#555555">Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in
the BGC's Recommendation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:17.4pt">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#555555">Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was
warranted with respect to Request 13-3.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:17.4pt">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#555555">Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 <<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#ef673e;text-decoration:none">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf</span></a>>
[PDF, 142 KB].<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:17.4pt">
<span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#555555">Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community
discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">**********************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br>
ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org" target="_blank">www.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> <br>
<a href="http://www.williamdrake.org" target="_blank">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
***********************************************************<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>