From robin Thu Nov 1 02:33:28 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:33:28 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds Message-ID: So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. Thanks very much! Best, Robin ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Response-10-29-v3.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Nov 1 04:19:55 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:19:55 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Hi, I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. avri On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. > > Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. > > Thanks very much! > > Best, > Robin > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From william.drake Thu Nov 1 08:39:20 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:39:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree, thanks much Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > >> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >> >> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> >> Thanks very much! >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Thu Nov 1 10:20:10 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:20:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD56F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 1+ wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Do 01.11.2012 07:39 An: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds I agree, thanks much Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > >> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >> >> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> >> Thanks very much! >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wendy Thu Nov 1 11:27:54 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:27:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD56F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD56F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5092409A.9000507@seltzer.com> +1. Thanks! --Wendy On 11/01/2012 04:20 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" wrote: > 1+ > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake > Gesendet: Do 01.11.2012 07:39 > An: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller > Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds > > > > I agree, thanks much Robin > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >>> >>> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >>> >>> Thanks very much! >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From kleiman Thu Nov 1 11:41:52 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:41:52 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi All, Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half onto the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you an update asap. But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the meeting (and of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC questions) will be: what is policy and what is implementation? If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to revise the letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/BC points of Implementation or Policy? I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? But first, back to the Brussels call... Best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds I agree, thanks much Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > >> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >> >> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> >> Thanks very much! >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From william.drake Thu Nov 1 11:49:09 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:49:09 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do it! You said the magic words > But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? Si -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Thu Nov 1 12:18:59 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 06:18:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 On Oct 31, 2012 10:19 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate > publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > > > So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs > in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and > 15th on the issue. > > > > Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed > document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time > for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. > > > > Thanks very much! > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From konstantinos Thu Nov 1 12:37:04 2012 From: konstantinos (konstantinos at komaitis.org) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:37:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> I am cc'ing Robin - thanks Kathy for this. If this is part of what is being discussed, adding it to the letter would make sense. Looking forward to hearing all about this meeting. KK Nov 1, 2012 09:42:19 AM, kleiman at fhhlaw.com wrote: =========================================== Hi All, Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half onto the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you an update asap. But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the meeting (and of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC questions) will be: what is policy and what is implementation? If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to revise the letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/BC points of Implementation or Policy? I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? But first, back to the Brussels call... Best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds I agree, thanks much Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > >> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >> >> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> >> Thanks very much! >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Thu Nov 1 15:15:33 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:15:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> Message-ID: Hi, Doesn't it change the nature, or at least tense of the letter to release it once the meeting is over? Would that not be another letter? just asking. avri On 1 Nov 2012, at 06:37, konstantinos at komaitis.org wrote: > I am cc'ing Robin - thanks Kathy for this. If this is part of what is being discussed, adding it to the letter would make sense. Looking forward to hearing all about this meeting. > > KK > > > Nov 1, 2012 09:42:19 AM, kleiman at fhhlaw.com wrote: > > =========================================== > > Hi All, > Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half onto the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you an update asap. > > But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the meeting (and of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC questions) will be: what is policy and what is implementation? > > If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to revise the letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/BC points of Implementation or Policy? > > I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? > > > But first, back to the Brussels call... > Best, > Kathy > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds > > I agree, thanks much Robin > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >>> >>> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >>> >>> Thanks very much! >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Thu Nov 1 15:23:42 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 06:23:42 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> Message-ID: <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> Why not send two letters? This one now (which is already losing its timeliness and people in the community have been asking for for days already), and then another one that is more detailed about the proposals based on what you've learned in the Brussels meeting? I just got up and tried to join the call, but there was no one on the line. Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Doesn't it change the nature, or at least tense of the letter to > release it once the meeting is over? > > Would that not be another letter? > > just asking. > > avri > > On 1 Nov 2012, at 06:37, konstantinos at komaitis.org wrote: > >> I am cc'ing Robin - thanks Kathy for this. If this is part of what >> is being discussed, adding it to the letter would make sense. >> Looking forward to hearing all about this meeting. >> >> KK >> >> >> Nov 1, 2012 09:42:19 AM, kleiman at fhhlaw.com wrote: >> >> =========================================== >> >> Hi All, >> Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half >> onto the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you >> an update asap. >> >> But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the >> meeting (and of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC >> questions) will be: what is policy and what is implementation? >> >> If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to >> revise the letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/ >> BC points of Implementation or Policy? >> >> I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer >> to do it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? >> >> >> But first, back to the Brussels call... >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- >> bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM >> To: Avri Doria >> Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for >> tlds >> >> I agree, thanks much Robin >> >> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for >>> immediate publication. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for >>>> new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions >>>> on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the >>>> proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish >>>> the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions >>>> on the 1st. >>>> >>>> Thanks very much! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP JUSTICE >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Thu Nov 1 15:49:09 2012 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:49:09 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Sending 2 letters makes sense to me - get this one out now & echo the points made with more detail on proposals after the meeting. On 1 November 2012 13:23, Robin Gross wrote: > Why not send two letters? This one now (which is already losing its > timeliness and people in the community have been asking for for days > already), and then another one that is more detailed about the proposals > based on what you've learned in the Brussels meeting? > > I just got up and tried to join the call, but there was no one on the line. > > Robin > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Doesn't it change the nature, or at least tense of the letter to release > it once the meeting is over? > > Would that not be another letter? > > just asking. > > avri > > On 1 Nov 2012, at 06:37, konstantinos at komaitis.org wrote: > > I am cc'ing Robin - thanks Kathy for this. If this is part of what is > being discussed, adding it to the letter would make sense. Looking forward > to hearing all about this meeting. > > KK > > > Nov 1, 2012 09:42:19 AM, kleiman at fhhlaw.com wrote: > > =========================================== > > Hi All, > Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half onto > the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you an update > asap. > > But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the meeting (and > of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC questions) will be: what is > policy and what is implementation? > > If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to revise the > letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/BC points of > Implementation or Policy? > > I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do > it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? > > > But first, back to the Brussels call... > Best, > Kathy > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds > > I agree, thanks much Robin > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate > publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > > So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in > light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and > 15th on the issue. > > Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document > in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it > to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. > > Thanks very much! > > Best, > Robin > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Thu Nov 1 15:59:43 2012 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:59:43 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 On 1 November 2012 10:18, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > +1 > On Oct 31, 2012 10:19 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate >> publication. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> > So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs >> in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and >> 15th on the issue. >> > >> > Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed >> document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time >> for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> > >> > Thanks very much! >> > >> > Best, >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > IP JUSTICE >> > Robin Gross, Executive Director >> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Thu Nov 1 18:56:35 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:56:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <509271830200005B0009A6DB@smtp.law.unh.edu> Kathy - thanks for participating on the Brussels call. What's the dial-in number for that? As I mentioned, I can join for part of Friday morning if that will help. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Kathryn Kleiman To: William Drake , Avri Doria CC: NCSG-Policy , Milton Mueller Date: 11/1/2012 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds- some extra time? Hi All Appreciate being on the policy list and now about an hour and half onto the Brussels call. It's very interesting, and I will type you an update asap. But one of the clear questions of the opening segement of the meeting (and of the upcoming 11/16 discussion of the IPC/BC questions) will be: what is policy and what is implementation? If you don't mind a slight delay, I think it would be great to revise the letter to include a brief discussion on each of the IPC/BC points of Implementation or Policy? I promise you it will be very timely and useful -- and I volunteer to do it! But will need a bit more time, if that is OK....?? But first, back to the Brussels call... Best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:39 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds I agree, thanks much Robin On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it looks good and recommend that the PC approve it for immediate publication. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 20:33, Robin Gross wrote: > >> So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. >> >> Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. >> >> Thanks very much! >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Nov 1 20:06:45 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:06:45 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment Periods: TMCH and privileges for IOC/RC References: <86F61815-0F61-4555-886F-B7C9BEC0CC39@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Dear PC Members: Are there any volunteers from the PC (or otherwise on this list) to take the lead to work with the membership on these first two open comment periods? We've got 7 and 9 days respectively to submit a comment on those topics. Even a statement that is just one page in length would be very useful in my view, so let's try to make some submissions. Any volunteers? Thanks! Robin > Open Comment Periods > ISSUE: > > Trademark Clearinghouse Documents > Comment Closed: > Reply Close: 7 November 2012 > > Protection of International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Red Cross > Names (RCRC) Drafting Team ? Recommendations > Comment Closed > Reply Close: 9 November 2012 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kleiman Thu Nov 1 22:39:10 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:39:10 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE249036D0@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi Robin, It's an amazing letter, and one I truly support. My only question is whether we should save questions about process for a different letter? The follow 3 paragraphs strike me as a little harsh given our robust participation in the Brussels session today. I also wonder whether we welcome the opportunity to participate in a policy session - even equally? I'm a little upset about being pulled away from client work to have to debate resurrected policy issues. So I would ask for a brief rewrite or even deletion of the following paragraphs. Otherwise absolutely awesome, passionate, poetic letter. Best, Kathy P.s. please accept or reject at will as I am going to sleep soon :) --------------------------- Executive Summary: * ICANN staff instructions to the community to re-think GNSO consensus policy withoutt equal participation of all affected stakeholders in that decision would be inappropriate. [To what does this refer?] End of letter text: While we greatly appreciate the efforts of the CEO to reach out to us and accommodate NCSG participation, we remind ICANN that a one-sided meeting with staff would be an inappropriate forum for making any decisions about sending GNSO-approved policy back to the community for re-working. [I think this has now been eliminated as a possibility due to our response last week, so perhaps we can delete this paragraph?] We urge ICANN to honor its commitment to transparency, accountability and the multi-equal stakeholder policy development process by making a clear public announcement about the specific purpose and limited scope of the meetings on November 1st, 2nd and 15th on RPMs. [Perhaps delete this too? ] NCSG welcomes the invitation and the opportunity to meet with ICANN's CEO and senior staff in the equal manner afforded to the proponents of the IPC-BC proposals. [Do we welcome the invitation, or we appreciate the invitation, but express sadness that we return again to debate policy issues that we thought had been long settled. ] We stand ready to further elaborate on the specific proposals [existing policy in the Guidebook?] in detail, including the history and context from which they derive, and their relationship to existing law and consensus policy. Thank you. From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:33 PM To: NCSG-Policy Cc: Milton Mueller Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. Thanks very much! Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kleiman Thu Nov 1 22:56:28 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:56:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely) In-Reply-To: References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903725@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi All, Quick update today from our Brussels meeting. First, we were very warmly welcomed, and Fadi was very fair and balanced and did listen to hear all sides. I am very appreciative and he helped us make our points clear, and others too. That said, as Robin predicted there are many IPC people - five at my count (although some people came on and off the call), and three BC, with two sharing the time and one on the whole call. Jeff Eckhaus, Jeff Neumann and Joe Waldron from Demand Media, Neustar and Verisign respectively. Lots of ICANN staff including Kurt and John J. So the policy issues were separated out. The 8 points of IPC/BC will be discussed at a meeting now set for 11/16 (one day later than originally announced). Currently set for LA, although that might change. The question will be whether the proposals are policy - in which case they will be listened to, but routed through the policy process. Or implementation, to be included in current TMCH design. I have asked Robin whether we might write a second letter setting our views on this issue - point by point. But the Brussels meeting is implementation. There are still detailed questions that need to be worked out for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). What types of passwords should be issued (by TM holder or by TM entry)? The ICANN Model or the Neustar/ARI/Registries "alternative model"? (Now leaning towards the latter unless you have any objection.) We were talking about fields and I fought hard, with IPC support, to ensure that the exact language of the goods/services of the trademark are entered, in addition to the international Class of Goods and Services (which is very broad). J.Scott picked up in Toronto that this data was not being captured; ICANN staff thought it might be a "free form" entry form. I said it had to be the exact wording of the trademark registration - and everyone ultimately agreed. What this experience shows me is that we are really the ones looking out for the registrants. We are the only ones really keeping an eye on the TM Claims process, and trying to ensure registrants get accurate and complete TM information to make their decision whether to register or not. It's not that anyone else is wrong, but their priorities are elsewhere. Registries and registrars are implementing their own systems; ICANN Staff is working with Deloitte and IBM, and IPC/BC is worried about entering potentially hundreds of thousands of TM registrations and then having a Sunrise period that works as promised in the policy. So we have a critical role, and I am glad we fought for a place in this meeting. And for hopefully equal spots in the 11/16 meeting. Robin, please feel free to add. Good night All the best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ [cid:image003.png at 01CB79CE.32383780] Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From robin Thu Nov 1 23:33:20 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:33:20 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE249036D0@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE249036D0@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <8AF5EF86-09BC-4CF6-B787-F82846857B52@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Kathy, for the additional comments. In light of your discussions today, I've pulled those unsettling para at the end of the statement. 4th time is a charm, right? Attached is the final statement to go out today. So speak now if anyone has new edits to propose or don't like some of the previous ones. We will do a separate NCSG statement that addresses the new RPM proposals in more detail with much more background and context in preparation for the mtg on the 16th where they will be the only agenda item. Kathy has volunteered to take a stab at the first draft of that statement (thanks!). Best, Robin ? On Nov 1, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > Hi Robin, > It?s an amazing letter, and one I truly support. My only question > is whether we should save questions about process for a different > letter? > > The follow 3 paragraphs strike me as a little harsh given our > robust participation in the Brussels session today. I also wonder > whether we welcome the opportunity to participate in a policy > session ? even equally? I?m a little upset about being pulled > away from client work to have to debate resurrected policy issues. > > So I would ask for a brief rewrite or even deletion of the > following paragraphs. Otherwise absolutely awesome, passionate, > poetic letter. > Best, > Kathy > P.s. please accept or reject at will as I am going to sleep soon J > --------------------------- > > > Executive Summary: > ? ICANN staff instructions to the community to re- > think GNSO consensus policy withoutt equal participation of all > affected stakeholders in that decision would be inappropriate. [To > what does this refer?] > > End of letter text: > While we greatly appreciate the efforts of the CEO to reach out to > us and accommodate NCSG participation, we remind ICANN that a one- > sided meeting with staff would be an inappropriate forum for making > any decisions about sending GNSO-approved policy back to the > community for re-working. [I think this has now been eliminated as > a possibility due to our response last week, so perhaps we can > delete this paragraph?] > > We urge ICANN to honor its commitment to transparency, > accountability and the multi-equal stakeholder policy development > process by making a clear public announcement about the specific > purpose and limited scope of the meetings on November 1st, 2nd and > 15th on RPMs. [Perhaps delete this too? ] > > NCSG welcomes the invitation and the opportunity to meet with > ICANN?s CEO and senior staff in the equal manner afforded to the > proponents of the IPC-BC proposals. [Do we welcome the invitation, > or we appreciate the invitation, but express sadness that we return > again to debate policy issues that we thought had been long > settled. ] We stand ready to further elaborate on the specific > proposals [existing policy in the Guidebook?] in detail, including > the history and context from which they derive, and their > relationship to existing law and consensus policy. Thank you. > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- > bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:33 PM > To: NCSG-Policy > Cc: Milton Mueller > Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds > > So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new > RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the > 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue. > > Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed > document in the next day. I'd really like to publish the statement > in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st. > > Thanks very much! > > Best, > Robin > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Response-10-29-v4.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 75264 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Nov 2 02:57:20 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:57:20 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] final statement as submitted on proposals for additional rpms Message-ID: <3C371CAE-4994-488B-ACAD-81B4A721358B@ipjustice.org> 1 November 2012 Statement of ICANN?s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on the IPC-BC?s Proposal for Additional RPMs* Executive Summary ? NCSG is concerned by proposals from the IPC and BC to change consensus policy and re-open previously settled policy matters on Rights Protection Mechanisms for new tlds. ? The proposal under discussion does not reflect the hard-won balance found in the current consensus policy, nor the traditional limitations that exist in trademark law. ? The proposal removes matters from the negotiated RAA and registry agreements into a vague 'backdoor process', and binds ICANN to unlimited compliance obligations. Both the substance of the proposals and the manner of presenting it directly to ICANN without a proper policy process undermine our shared desire to create a truly multi-equal stakeholder process that honours ICANN's commitment to transparency and accountability. The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) writes in response to the latest set of proposals to re-open well-settled matters related to trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) for new top-level domain names, specifically the 8-point letter sent by the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and the Business Constituency (BC) on 17 October 2012 to ICANN.[1] NCSG is deeply troubled that ICANN is considering ignoring its own policy development process by re-opening community negotiated compromises at this late date. We wish to underscore the need for equal participation from all impacted parties, including the NCSG, in any discussions to re-open policy or consider new proposals. NCSG wishes to register concern with the process by which these proposals were presented directly to ICANN Board and senior staff in Toronto, bypassing the impacted communities and entirely circumventing the multi-stakeholder policy development process. The NCSG Policy Committee, which considers and develops policy positions for the NCSG, has yet to be approached by any of the proponents of these proposals to discuss them or any of the concerns behind them.[2] NCSG supports the positions taken by NTAG in its 24 October 2012 letter to ICANN and notes its succinct observation that ?these last- minute policy recommendations amount to just another bite of the same apple that has already been bitten down to its core.?[3] NCSG also supports the statement of the Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG) in response to the IPC-BC proposals for increased RPMs, and we agree with RrSG?s analysis that ?the additional RPMs circulated in Toronto represent a change to the policy and not the implementation of the TMCH.?[4] Indeed many of the proposals in the 17 October IPC-BC letter are proposals the community has already heard and rejected a number of times in the years of previous discussions on this subject. The IPC-BC?s letter raises from the dead rejected proposals such as the creation of a list of words that would be considered per se off limits for registration, thus creating a prior restraint on speech. [5] This proposal is broadly over-reaching in what it prohibits and would prevent many lawful uses such as corporate whistle-blowing websites, criticism of trademarked goods, services and companies, and other lawful uses of words by those other than a trademark owner. The IPC-BC proposals contain none of the balance nor limitations found in the current consensus policy, nor in trademark law such as: geographical limitations to a trademark owner?s rights, the restrictions of trademark rights to particular classes of goods and services, and the regulation of commercial speech only, and legal rulings that rightfully apply to only specific persons and specific facts. Furthermore, just because there has been one instance of abuse with a trademark, does not mean that all subsequent uses of a trademarked word are abusive or prohibited by law. But that is the policy that IPC-BC proposes ICANN adopt. The IPC-BC letter proposes to expand the rights afforded trademark holders beyond the bounds of law and reason and beyond the consensus reached by the entire community in the STI[6] and related discussions. The IPC-BC letter proposes to remove matters that are properly and currently under negotiation with registrars in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).[7] And it proposes to unilaterally, via this ?back-door process?, impose contractual terms and conditions on registrars and registries,[8] and to bind ICANN to vague unreasonable compliance commitments,[9] driving-up costs for end-users and stifling innovation in the market. By changing a finite period for action to an indefinite one, the IPC-BC proposal would create a chilling effect by giving trademark holders the right to intimidate registrants in perpetuity despite the community consensus that the TMCH pertain to a limited time period.[10] In short, in addition to the objection based on principle against re- opening community-approved consensus policy, the NCSG contends that the substance of the IPC-BC?s proposals would massively expand rights afforded to trademark holders under law, without any of the balancing or public interest limitations placed upon those rights. These last-minute proposals must be rejected as an inappropriate circumvention of the bottom-up multi-equal stakeholder policy development process that ICANN champions. It is far too late to make such significant changes from what is stated in the final Applicant Guidebook. NCSG appreciates the invitation to meet with ICANN?s CEO and senior staff in the equal manner afforded to the proponents of the IPC-BC proposals, although we regret that we must again debate long-settled policy issues. We stand ready to further elaborate on the specific IPC-BC proposals in detail, including the history and context from which they derive, and their relationship to existing law and consensus policy as stated in the Guidebook. Thank you. * This NCSG statement was approved by the NCSG Policy Committee on 1 November 2012. [1] IPC-BC 8-point letter to ICANN dated 17 October 2012, posted online at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to- pritz-17oct12-en [2] The NCSG Policy Committee includes representatives from both constituencies in NCSG (NPOC and NCUC), all 6 NCSG GNSO Council Representatives and NCSG?s Chair. [3] NTAG letter to ICANN of 24 October 2012 posted online at: http:// www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ntag-to-icann-24oct12-en [4] Registrar Stakeholder Group Post-Toronto Communication to ICANN CEO posted online at: http://icannregistrars.org/calendar/ announcements.php?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign [5] Specifically Points 4 and 8 of IPC-BC letter to ICANN of 17 October 2012. [6] ICANN Special Trademark Issues (STI) Recommendations unanimously approved by the GNSO Council (including the IPC and BC) in December 2009 as a consensus policy for RPMs for new TLDs in which all parties compromised, but not all parties were subsequently willing to honor their commitments. STI Recommendations available at: http:// gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf [7] Specifically Point 6 of IPC-BC letter to ICANN of 17 October 2012. [8] Specifically Point 5 of IPC-BC letter to ICANN of 17 October 2012. [9] Specifically Point 7 of IPC-BC letter to ICANN of 17 October 2012. [10] Specifically Point 2 of IPC-BC letter to ICANN of 17 October 2012. ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Letter-to-ICANN-2012-11-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 100689 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Fri Nov 2 05:08:41 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds In-Reply-To: <8AF5EF86-09BC-4CF6-B787-F82846857B52@ipjustice.org> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE249036D0@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <8AF5EF86-09BC-4CF6-B787-F82846857B52@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <509300F90200005B0009A761@smtp.law.unh.edu> Not being on the Council, I assume there will be a new PC chair. In any case, thank you Robin, Kathy and everyone else who worked on this - let's send it! Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Robin Gross To: Kathryn Kleiman CC: NCSG-Policy , Milton Mueller Date: 11/1/2012 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds Thanks, Kathy, for the additional comments. In light of your discussions today, I've pulled those unsettling para at the end of the statement. 4th time is a charm, right? Attached is the final statement to go out today. So speak now if anyone has new edits to propose or don't like some of the previous ones. We will do a separate NCSG statement that addresses the new RPM proposals in more detail with much more background and context in preparation for the mtg on the 16th where they will be the only agenda item. Kathy has volunteered to take a stab at the first draft of that statement (thanks!). Best, Robin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Fri Nov 2 05:09:45 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary Wong) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:09:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely) In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903725@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.ou tlook.com> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903725@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.ou tlook.com> Message-ID: <50930139.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> $(UThanks for the report, Kathy - some interesting stuff there! If the next meeting is Nov 16 and not 15, and in LA, there's a possibility I can go. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Kathryn Kleiman To: Maria Farrell , Robin Gross CC: NCSG-Policy , Milton Mueller Date: 11/1/2012 4:57 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely) Hi All, Quick update today from our Brussels meeting. First, we were very warmly welcomed, and Fadi was very fair and balanced and did listen to hear all sides. I am very appreciative and he helped us make our points clear, and others too. That said, as Robin predicted there are many IPC people ? five at my count (although some people came on and off the call), and three BC, with two sharing the time and one on the whole call. Jeff Eckhaus, Jeff Neumann and Joe Waldron from Demand Media, Neustar and Verisign respectively. Lots of ICANN staff including Kurt and John J. So the policy issues were separated out. The 8 points of IPC/BC will be discussed at a meeting now set for 11/16 (one day later than originally announced). Currently set for LA, although that might change. The question will be whether the proposals are policy ? in which case they will be listened to, but routed through the policy process. Or implementation, to be included in current TMCH design. I have asked Robin whether we might write a second letter setting our views on this issue ? point by point. But the Brussels meeting is implementation. There are still detailed questions that need to be worked out for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). What types of passwords should be issued (by TM holder or by TM entry)? The ICANN Model or the Neustar/ARI/Registries ?alternative model?? (Now leaning towards the latter unless you have any objection.) We were talking about fields and I fought hard, with IPC support, to ensure that the exact language of the goods/services of the trademark are entered, in addition to the international Class of Goods and Services (which is very broad). J.Scott picked up in Toronto that this data was not being captured; ICANN staff thought it might be a ?free form? entry form. I said it had to be the exact wording of the trademark registration ? and everyone ultimately agreed. What this experience shows me is that we are really the ones looking out for the registrants. We are the only ones really keeping an eye on the TM Claims process, and trying to ensure registrants get accurate and complete TM information to make their decision whether to register or not. It?s not that anyone else is wrong, but their priorities are elsewhere. Registries and registrars are implementing their own systems; ICANN Staff is working with Deloitte and IBM, and IPC/BC is worried about entering potentially hundreds of thousands of TM registrations and then having a Sunrise period that works as promised in the policy. So we have a critical role, and I am glad we fought for a place in this meeting. And for hopefully equal spots in the 11/16 meeting. Robin, please feel free to add. Good night All the best, Kathy _____________________________________________________________________________ Kathy Kleiman Internet Counsel 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 * kleiman at fhhlaw.com ( mailto:jazzo at fhhlaw.com ) | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wendy Fri Nov 2 10:36:26 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 04:36:26 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490331F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490331F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <5093860A.8010401@seltzer.com> I'm happy to provide input on the technical side. Fundamentally, the TM folks are mistaken in what is possible from encryption, and building lots of sisyphean arguments around that. I think the alternate model is more technically sound. --Wendy On 10/31/2012 05:16 PM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > This helps a lot! Tx so much, Mary!!! > And regards to All, > Kathy > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:25 PM > To: NCSG-Policy; Robin Gross > Cc: Kathryn Kleiman > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > Hi Kathy and welcome! > > > I can share the remote participation time this week, on Friday at least for part of the time. I can't do Thursdays as I teach and this week have 3 meetings back to back in the afternoon. > > > For the meeting on 11/15 I can do the afternoon (after 1 p.m. EST). > > > As for TMCH updates - I attended the Toronto (and for that matter Prague) presentation sessions. I don't know that I know more than you already do - basically ICANN is sticking with Deloitte/IBM, who although they have made substantial progress with details of the implementation since Prague still don't seem to be quite there. The alternate model that Neustar and ARI are pushing is interesting, and does reduce costs for the registries, but I don't think is well-understood by everyone who was there. There's a huge gulf of knowledge between the TM lawyers who have been on the scene since the TMCH idea first came up, and the new ones who don't have anywhere that kind of background and context. There's also the problem that some TM lawyers don't understand the technical issues, or even how PKI works (which is part of the Neustar/ARI model). > > > Fadi already had a meeting with some of these folks - registries, applicants, TM owners - on Thursday morning in Toronto; the Brussels meeting is I think a follow up on that which is supposed to hammer out specific details about how the TMCH should work. > > > TM owners continue to be worried about access to the data they will be putting into the TMCH, and how to secure it. Some - not all - want to re-open the whole "identical match" issue for the TM Claims Service (which I'm rather pleased to note was something I drafted when I was on the IRT and stuck to despite challenges dating from those discussions - and it's stayed that way through the STI process and post-hoc ICANN tinkering.) > > > Hope this helps, > > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>>> > > From: > > > Robin Gross > > > > To: > > > NCSG-Policy > > > > CC: > > > Kathryn Kleiman > > > > Date: > > > 10/31/2012 3:25 PM > > > Subject: > > > [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > Unless any PC members object, I'd like to add Kathy Kleiman to the PC list for the next two weeks to work with us on the TMC issues and prepare for those discussions. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Kathryn Kleiman > > > Date: October 31, 2012 12:16:19 PM PDT > > To: Robin Gross > > > Subject: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > > Dear Robin, > > Could you kindly pass the email below to the NCSG-Policy Committee? > > Tx you! > > Kathy > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hi All, > > In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting with in Brussels I have two questions and two requests: > > > > Questions > > 1) Can anyone who attended meetings in Toronto about the Trademark Clearinghouse please share any information that you heard of interest/concern to NCSG? I would appreciate it! > > 2) Can anyone share the time of this meeting with me? The meeting runs 9am-5pm Brussels time, Thurs + Friday, and right now I am the only participant from NCSG. I am attending by teleconference. I have some other work I must do, but hate to leave this meeting without an NCSG participant. Can anyone share the time with me? > > > > Requests > > 1) As you know, the policy section has been segmented out of this meeting and placed in a separate one to take place on 11/15 ? in a meeting to take place in LA or DC. I think we should have at least two reps. I have volunteered to be one of them. Who else could join us and help represent our strongly-held views? > > > > 2) I have asked Robin if I might be added to the NCSG-Policy list for the next few days so I can share updates and ask questions in realtime. > > > > Best, > > Kathy > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > [cid:image001.png at 01CDB78B.8699B590] > > Kathy Kleiman > > Internet Counsel > > 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 > Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 > * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com |www.commlawblog.com > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From kleiman Fri Nov 2 14:15:28 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:15:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy In-Reply-To: <5093860A.8010401@seltzer.com> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490331F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5093860A.8010401@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490396B@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Me too, and it just won the day (moments ago). Best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy at seltzer.com] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 4:36 AM To: Kathryn Kleiman Cc: Mary Wong; NCSG-Policy; Robin Gross Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy I'm happy to provide input on the technical side. Fundamentally, the TM folks are mistaken in what is possible from encryption, and building lots of sisyphean arguments around that. I think the alternate model is more technically sound. --Wendy On 10/31/2012 05:16 PM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > This helps a lot! Tx so much, Mary!!! > And regards to All, > Kathy > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:25 PM > To: NCSG-Policy; Robin Gross > Cc: Kathryn Kleiman > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > Hi Kathy and welcome! > > > I can share the remote participation time this week, on Friday at least for part of the time. I can't do Thursdays as I teach and this week have 3 meetings back to back in the afternoon. > > > For the meeting on 11/15 I can do the afternoon (after 1 p.m. EST). > > > As for TMCH updates - I attended the Toronto (and for that matter Prague) presentation sessions. I don't know that I know more than you already do - basically ICANN is sticking with Deloitte/IBM, who although they have made substantial progress with details of the implementation since Prague still don't seem to be quite there. The alternate model that Neustar and ARI are pushing is interesting, and does reduce costs for the registries, but I don't think is well-understood by everyone who was there. There's a huge gulf of knowledge between the TM lawyers who have been on the scene since the TMCH idea first came up, and the new ones who don't have anywhere that kind of background and context. There's also the problem that some TM lawyers don't understand the technical issues, or even how PKI works (which is part of the Neustar/ARI model). > > > Fadi already had a meeting with some of these folks - registries, applicants, TM owners - on Thursday morning in Toronto; the Brussels meeting is I think a follow up on that which is supposed to hammer out specific details about how the TMCH should work. > > > TM owners continue to be worried about access to the data they will be > putting into the TMCH, and how to secure it. Some - not all - want to > re-open the whole "identical match" issue for the TM Claims Service > (which I'm rather pleased to note was something I drafted when I was > on the IRT and stuck to despite challenges dating from those > discussions - and it's stayed that way through the STI process and > post-hoc ICANN tinkering.) > > > Hope this helps, > > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>>> > > From: > > > Robin Gross > > > > To: > > > NCSG-Policy > > > > CC: > > > Kathryn Kleiman > > > > Date: > > > 10/31/2012 3:25 PM > > > Subject: > > > [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > Unless any PC members object, I'd like to add Kathy Kleiman to the PC list for the next two weeks to work with us on the TMC issues and prepare for those discussions. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Kathryn Kleiman > > > Date: October 31, 2012 12:16:19 PM PDT > > To: Robin Gross > > > Subject: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy > > > > Dear Robin, > > Could you kindly pass the email below to the NCSG-Policy Committee? > > Tx you! > > Kathy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------- > > > > Hi All, > > In preparation for tomorrow's meeting with in Brussels I have two questions and two requests: > > > > Questions > > 1) Can anyone who attended meetings in Toronto about the Trademark Clearinghouse please share any information that you heard of interest/concern to NCSG? I would appreciate it! > > 2) Can anyone share the time of this meeting with me? The meeting runs 9am-5pm Brussels time, Thurs + Friday, and right now I am the only participant from NCSG. I am attending by teleconference. I have some other work I must do, but hate to leave this meeting without an NCSG participant. Can anyone share the time with me? > > > > Requests > > 1) As you know, the policy section has been segmented out of this meeting and placed in a separate one to take place on 11/15 - in a meeting to take place in LA or DC. I think we should have at least two reps. I have volunteered to be one of them. Who else could join us and help represent our strongly-held views? > > > > 2) I have asked Robin if I might be added to the NCSG-Policy list for the next few days so I can share updates and ask questions in realtime. > > > > Best, > > Kathy > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______ > > > > [cid:image001.png at 01CDB78B.8699B590] > > Kathy Kleiman > > Internet Counsel > > 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 > Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 > * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | > www.fhhlaw.com > |www.commlawblog.com > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From maria.farrell Fri Nov 2 15:28:11 2012 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:28:11 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely) In-Reply-To: <50930139.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> References: <46907B56-B259-4621-959A-729875BFADBF@acm.org> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903462@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <724126976.102372.1351766224965.JavaMail.mail@webmail09> <4699C64A-F1F1-4B10-8558-FA77D71D56E2@ipjustice.org> <50930139.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the report, Kathy, and also for securing what sounds like an important concession for registrants. Maria On 2 November 2012 03:09, Mary Wong wrote: > Thanks for the report, Kathy - some interesting stuff there! > > If the next meeting is Nov 16 and not 15, and in LA, there's a > possibility I can go. > > Cheers > > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> > > *From: * > > Kathryn Kleiman > > *To:* > > Maria Farrell , Robin Gross > > > *CC:* > > NCSG-Policy , Milton Mueller > > *Date: * > > 11/1/2012 4:57 PM > > *Subject: * > > [PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely) > > Hi All,**** > > Quick update today from our Brussels meeting. First, we were very warmly > welcomed, and Fadi was very fair and balanced and did listen to hear all > sides. I am very appreciative and he helped us make our points clear, and > others too.**** > > ** ** > > That said, as Robin predicted there are many IPC people ? five at my count > (although some people came on and off the call), and three BC, with two > sharing the time and one on the whole call. Jeff Eckhaus, Jeff Neumann > and Joe Waldron from Demand Media, Neustar and Verisign respectively. Lots > of ICANN staff including Kurt and John J. **** > > ** ** > > So the policy issues were separated out. The 8 points of IPC/BC will be > discussed at a meeting now set for 11/16 (one day later than originally > announced). Currently set for LA, although that might change. The > question will be whether the proposals are policy ? in which case they will > be listened to, but routed through the policy process. Or implementation, > to be included in current TMCH design. I have asked Robin whether we > might write a second letter setting our views on this issue ? point by > point.**** > > ** ** > > But the Brussels meeting is implementation. There are still detailed > questions that need to be worked out for the Trademark Clearinghouse > (TMCH). What types of passwords should be issued (by TM holder or by TM > entry)? The ICANN Model or the Neustar/ARI/Registries ?alternative model?? > (Now leaning towards the latter unless you have any objection.)**** > > ** ** > > We were talking about fields and I fought hard, with IPC support, to > ensure that the exact language of the goods/services of the trademark are > entered, in addition to the international Class of Goods and Services > (which is very broad). J.Scott picked up in Toronto that this data was not > being captured; ICANN staff thought it might be a ?free form? entry form. I > said it had to be the exact wording of the trademark registration ? and > everyone ultimately agreed.**** > > ** ** > > What this experience shows me is that we are really the ones looking out > for the registrants. We are the only ones really keeping an eye on the TM > Claims process, and trying to ensure registrants get accurate and complete > TM information to make their decision whether to register or not. **** > > ** ** > > It?s not that anyone else is wrong, but their priorities are elsewhere. > Registries and registrars are implementing their own systems; ICANN Staff > is working with Deloitte and IBM, and IPC/BC is worried about entering > potentially hundreds of thousands of TM registrations and then having a > Sunrise period that works as promised in the policy. **** > > ** ** > > So we have a critical role, and I am glad we fought for a place in this > meeting. And for hopefully equal spots in the 11/16 meeting.**** > > ** ** > > Robin, please feel free to add. Good night **** > > All the best,**** > > Kathy **** > > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > **** > > ** ** > > [image: cid:image003.png at 01CB79CE.32383780] ** ** > > Kathy Kleiman**** > > Internet Counsel**** > > 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209 > Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846 > * kleiman at fhhlaw.com | www.fhhlaw.com | > www.commlawblog.com **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 5097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Fri Nov 2 21:28:02 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:28:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For NCSG-Policy from Kathy In-Reply-To: <5093860A.8010401@seltzer.com> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24903158@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <682E839F-46E8-4B6A-A6FB-75FEEB820EF7@ipjustice.org> <509150CA.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE2490331F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5093860A.8010401@seltzer.com> Message-ID: I spent a good bit of time going through the technical discussions and completely agree. I do not understand the ICANN PoV on this. But I don't see this as a fight we should engage in. Wendy Seltzer wrote: >I'm happy to provide input on the technical side. Fundamentally, the TM >folks are mistaken in what is possible from encryption, and building >lots of sisyphean arguments around that. I think the alternate model is >more technically sound. > >--Wendy > Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Nov 8 03:56:40 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:56:40 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms Message-ID: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable- trademark-clearinghouse/ Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and recorded in the Clearinghouse. * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of domain names. * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during the domain name registration process. Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. Here is a summary of our findings: Trademark Submission and Verification Publication of Functional Specifications ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support those parties who will be implementing and building internal processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. TLD Launch and Sunrise Information ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. Communications and Training Activities We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery partner in the near term. Sunrise Implementation Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file are matters for follow-up discussions. Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the information, and that flexibility is important to trademark holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. However, registries are free to perform additional verification steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to sunrise registrations. Trademark Claims Implementation Centralized and De-centralized Features Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download the list of names with the frequency required. Registry guidelines All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and registries have discretion to extend both periods. Data protection There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to other parties. Next Steps The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and pricing. My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their contributions to this effort. We made real progress! Best, Fadi IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Nov 8 06:41:15 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:41:15 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?iso-8859-1?q?Reminder_--_For_Review_and_Feedback_--_G?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NSO_Inter-Sessional_Meeting_Planning_Consensus_-_Pls_Respo?= =?iso-8859-1?q?nd_By_COB_7_November_-=AD_This_Wednesday?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <625CDF8F-56B7-4032-8C36-6D0745AECF52@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Robert. I am a member of the NCSG-PC (the only one engaged in this discussion from the NCSG-PC at this point. Both Bill and Rafik were previously on the NCSG-PC, but since last month's GNSO Council elections, they are no longer members of the NCSG-PC). We are currently in-between chairs for the NCSG-PC. In the meantime I can act as a go-between with this discussion and the PC -- I'm just letting this group know that the NCSG-PC as a group will want to be involved in the planning and coordination of this meeting, since it is the NCSG leadership who should be coordinating the discussions on behalf of noncommercial users. Thanks, Robin On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Robin. I just saw your message after > transmitting my earlier note. > > I will incorporate your feedback with the other comments that are > being shared in my communique next week. I would note that not all > topics addressed at the January meeting may be strictly policy > related, but I'm sure the inputs from the NCSG PC will be welcomed > on those relevant topics. To keep the planning group manageable, > may I suggest you identify the Chair of that committee and we can > involve that individual in the planning discussions/correspondence. > Since we are now moving to the program/agenda phase of the planning > effort, perhaps you'll want that individual to take over the > planning responsibilities/representation of the NCSG. In the > meantime, I'll let others on the list comment on your other thoughts. > > Thanks, > > Rob > > > On 11/7/12 7:36 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > > Dear Robert: > > Thanks for moving this forward. LA works for NCSG as the > location. Although given the location of LA, an outreach meeting > probably isn't the best use of the time, as there are no shortages > of Californians at ICANN, but an intra-constituency discussions > would be a better use of that time and resources. The proposed > dates of January 29-30, 2013 are good for NCSG also. > > Support and participation should be divided equally between the > NCSG and the CSG (rather than divided by constituency as that > disadvantages the noncommercial participants who were all forced > into a single constituency until very recently). This was agreed > by the CSG and NCSG leaders at the NCPH meeting in Toronto, so that > baseline principle needs to be factored into the planning and > organization of this meeting. > > It is important the ICANN staff coordinate the organization of the > specifics of the discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee. The > NCSG Policy Committee is primarily responsible for developing NCSG > policy positions, and so the coordination and participation of the > NCSG-PC in these discussions in January with senior staff is > indispensable. Therefore it is most likely to be members of the > NCSG-PC who should be leading discussions from the NC side of the > house - the same applies for the framing of topical discussions. > It is important to remember that the two sides of the NCP House are > organized differently internally, with NCSG working across the > entire SG to represent members on policy matters as per the NCSG > Charter. If CSG wishes to coordinate its policy development > according to constituencies, that is its right. But NCSG's charter > is explicit that policy development primarily happens at an SG > level, so these meetings and discussions should not impose the CSG > model onto the NCSG by not coordinating with the NCSG-PC. Any > travel support should be provided to the NCSG Policy Committee as > part of the package or policy discussions with senior staff makes > little sense to us since our policy leaders won't be included. > > I agree that the existing proposed topics are a sufficient start so > we could focus on those initially. I also think it could be useful > for the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs to be there - simply as an > opportunity for them to better understand our concerns and ways of > working. Remote participation from other members of the NCPH > community, who are not able to travel to LA is also very important > for this meeting to be a success so I was glad to see it will be > provided for. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > >> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, >> Michael and Rafik; >> >> Because I think a number of you have been traveling, this is just >> a quick reminder of the opportunity to pass on to the list any >> feedback on the consensus date and location you might have by COB >> today/tomorrow ? Wednesday. We'll be proceeding with the >> consensus date and location plans outlined in my original message >> below unless substantial objections are expressed by the deadline. >> >> Any other comments or thoughts you have regarding the proposed >> meeting scope, program/agenda, supported traveler counts or next >> steps are welcomed going forward. Absent objections, I'll >> formally confirm the date and location with you shortly so >> everyone can "save the date". >> >> Best, >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 11/1/12 9:54 PM, "Robert Hoggarth" >> wrote: >> >> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, >> Michael and Rafik; >> >> Thanks for all your inputs before and during the Toronto meeting >> on the topic of an Inter-Sessional meeting of the GNSO Non >> Contracted Parties in January 2013. >> >> This email summarizes the consensus to date and the actions that >> Staff is taking to make the meeting arrangements. I have used a >> format similar to my last pre-Toronto communiqu?. I wish the note >> could be shorter, but I wanted to be sure to touch as many bases >> as possible. Also, please note the response/reaction/feedback >> deadline of COB next Wednesday, 7 November at the end of this >> message. >> >> Date: >> >> 1. General agreement on last week of January with preference as >> late in the week as possible. Hotel space and senior staff >> availability make January 29 and 30, 2013 the most ideal dates and >> Staff is pursuing that option. We hope to be able to lock that >> date down next week after your feedback. >> >> Location: >> >> 2. Given the priority of senior Staff attendance/collaboration, >> availability of event space, travel options and cost efficiencies >> of having an in-house meeting, the ICANN office in Los Angeles, >> California offers the best location for the pilot meeting and >> absent serious objections, that is what planning staff is now >> focused on. >> >> Meeting Scope: >> >> 3. Planners seemed to agree that an inter-sessional meeting with >> focused discussion on big picture/high level and strategic matters >> combined with specific operational discussions would be quite >> useful to thecommunity. Specific session topics have been proposed >> and identified. A list is provided at the bottom/end of the >> attached draft program/agenda. >> >> 4. Planners agreed that senior ICANN Staff participation in the >> event is a critical component of a successful inter-sessional >> pilot meeting. We have confirmed a critical mass of senior staff >> will be available on January 29 and 30, 2013 in Los Angeles. >> >> 5. There was recognition that the first pilot gathering should be >> smaller and more focused to help confirm ICANN strategic >> directions and resource commitments and to explore collaboration >> opportunities betweenICANN Staff and the NCPH (Non Contract Party >> House) community. Consensus is 6-10 attendees from each >> constituency. Based on our research and cost estimates, meeting >> room space and budget constraints will keep the number closer to >> the bottom end of that range. >> >> 6. The size of the ICANN LA office necessarily limits meeting >> participation to a maximum of approximately 50 in-person meeting >> attendees. This count would allow for 13 GNSO NCPH council >> members, plus 4 additional attendees from each Constituency >> (4*5=20), plus an additional 3 attendees from each >> stakeholdergroup (3*2=6), for an initial proposed total of 39 >> community attendees (plus Staff participation). If all travelers >> are funded at the standard expected rate of $3,000 per trip (total >> airfare and hotel costs) then additional funds would be available >> for food, meeting logistics (e.g., remote participation and >> scribes, etc.) and additional representational attendance from the >> contracted parties (see para 10 below)would also be an option. >> >> 7. The proposed 40 attendee/traveler number can be adjusted up or >> down based on further discussions, but would satisfy the consensus >> view that each Constituency should have the flexibility to bring >> additional communitymembers who might have expertise on the >> particular topics or agenda items that will be determined for the >> meeting agenda. We are also mindful of the budget constraints for >> this project and the 40 traveler number helps us meet that >> objective. Note that remote participation capabilities will give >> us furtherflexibility. >> >> 8. Planners noted that some of the meeting time could be devoted >> to individual community discussions or caucus opportunities as >> well. Staff has kept this option in mind and we have identified >> space and agenda availability for as many as 5 simultaneous >> breakout meetings of approximately 8 people to meet at some point >> during the meeting agenda. That time slot can also potentially be >> adjusted based on the specific needs or interests of each of your >> communities. >> >> Meeting Agenda: >> >> 9. A number of you mentioned prospective meeting topics. They are >> listed at the bottom of the draft meeting schedule/agenda attached >> to this email. It has been suggested that each Constituency could >> host and lead the discussions of at least one meeting topic, so >> the draft agenda table provides an opportunity for you to indicate >> interest in volunteering to host/chair a topic. >> >> 10. During one of our discussions, an interest was expressed in >> having members of the contract community also participate in the >> meeting. The contracted parties are planning their own inter- >> sessional event in Amsterdam one week before the proposed NCPH >> meeting in LA so substantial participation from that community may >> not be possible. In Toronto, I did mention the possibility of >> meeting participation to the new GNSO Council Chair (Jonathan >> Robinson) and the new Vice Chair from the GNSO Contracted Parties >> House (Mason Cole). Both fellows expressed an interest in the >> NCPH meeting ? chiefly for the potential value of future >> information exchange and collaboration opportunities. The >> planning group may still wish to explore an agenda item on the >> role of the GNSO Council or on the future policy working >> relationship with contract parties. Even remote participation >> from Jonathan or Mason may prove to be helpful in this regard. >> Just a thought. >> >> Travel Support: >> >> 11. As noted in items 7 and 8 above, travel funding will be made >> available for all community travelers. Based on an average of >> $3,000 total travel costs per each traveler (economy air fare, >> plus two or three hotel nights), a group of 40 people would appear >> to meet the projected budget for the proposed pilot effort. >> Increasing that number would probably require us to cut out a >> reception. >> >> 12. Scribing and remote participation capabilities will enable us >> to expand meeting attendance to ensure participation by community >> members who might not be able to travel to the meeting. Staff is >> factoring those costs into the logistics and potential costs for >> the meeting. >> >> Next Steps: >> >> 13. Please take some time to review these materials and provide >> feedback to the circulation list by no later than COB your local >> time next Wednesday, 7 November. If you have any serious >> objections to the proposed meeting dates or the LA location please >> express them as soon as possible so that we can recalibrate. >> Absent a serious objection, we will lock down that date and the LA >> location next week (on 7 November) so that you can announce the >> meeting to your respective communities as appropriate. If I hear >> from all of the communities earlier than 7 November, we'll lock >> things down faster. >> >> 14. Suggestions for ?tweeking? the remaining logistics and >> developing the program/agenda topics and times are most welcomed >> and can be worked out over the next couple of weeks of regular >> emails. I will manage that process through regular emails and >> requests for your feedback. Please feel free to red-line comment >> and edit the attached draft program schedule agenda ? particularly >> filling in where you may wish to volunteer chair/host a particular >> topic. Session Chair volunteers will be accepted on a first-come >> first-served basis. Each Constituency should have the opportunity >> to host at least one of the six (or more) topic sessions. So feel >> free to volunteer in your feedback note to the group. >> >> >> Thanks again for your help in getting this effort organized! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rob > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Nov 8 08:19:33 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:19:33 +0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_--_For_Review_and_Feedback_--_GNSO_I?= =?utf-8?q?nter-Sessional_Meeting_Planning_Consensus_-_Pls_Respond_By_COB_?= =?utf-8?q?7_November_-=C2=AD_This_Wednesday?= In-Reply-To: <625CDF8F-56B7-4032-8C36-6D0745AECF52@ipjustice.org> References: <625CDF8F-56B7-4032-8C36-6D0745AECF52@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <8403F5AB-B054-444F-ACD4-0F371E1FFE26@uzh.ch> Hi from Baku Sorry to be behind on this thread, terrible connectivity + busy. I support everything Robin's said, especially re: inclusion of the SG-wide elected PC in addition to constituency reps. The two SGs are structured differently and there must be fairness and hence numerical parity if we are to have a meeting that is not marred by contention from the outset. Best Bill On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:41, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks, Robert. I am a member of the NCSG-PC (the only one engaged in this discussion from the NCSG-PC at this point. Both Bill and Rafik were previously on the NCSG-PC, but since last month's GNSO Council elections, they are no longer members of the NCSG-PC). We are currently in-between chairs for the NCSG-PC. In the meantime I can act as a go-between with this discussion and the PC -- I'm just letting this group know that the NCSG-PC as a group will want to be involved in the planning and coordination of this meeting, since it is the NCSG leadership who should be coordinating the discussions on behalf of noncommercial users. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Robin. I just saw your message after transmitting my earlier note. >> >> I will incorporate your feedback with the other comments that are being shared in my communique next week. I would note that not all topics addressed at the January meeting may be strictly policy related, but I'm sure the inputs from the NCSG PC will be welcomed on those relevant topics. To keep the planning group manageable, may I suggest you identify the Chair of that committee and we can involve that individual in the planning discussions/correspondence. Since we are now moving to the program/agenda phase of the planning effort, perhaps you'll want that individual to take over the planning responsibilities/representation of the NCSG. In the meantime, I'll let others on the list comment on your other thoughts. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 11/7/12 7:36 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> >> Dear Robert: >> >> Thanks for moving this forward. LA works for NCSG as the location. Although given the location of LA, an outreach meeting probably isn't the best use of the time, as there are no shortages of Californians at ICANN, but an intra-constituency discussions would be a better use of that time and resources. The proposed dates of January 29-30, 2013 are good for NCSG also. >> >> Support and participation should be divided equally between the NCSG and the CSG (rather than divided by constituency as that disadvantages the noncommercial participants who were all forced into a single constituency until very recently). This was agreed by the CSG and NCSG leaders at the NCPH meeting in Toronto, so that baseline principle needs to be factored into the planning and organization of this meeting. >> >> It is important the ICANN staff coordinate the organization of the specifics of the discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee. The NCSG Policy Committee is primarily responsible for developing NCSG policy positions, and so the coordination and participation of the NCSG-PC in these discussions in January with senior staff is indispensable. Therefore it is most likely to be members of the NCSG-PC who should be leading discussions from the NC side of the house - the same applies for the framing of topical discussions. It is important to remember that the two sides of the NCP House are organized differently internally, with NCSG working across the entire SG to represent members on policy matters as per the NCSG Charter. If CSG wishes to coordinate its policy development according to constituencies, that is its right. But NCSG's charter is explicit that policy development primarily happens at an SG level, so these meetings and discussions should not impose the CSG model onto the NCSG by not coordinating with the NCSG-PC. Any travel support should be provided to the NCSG Policy Committee as part of the package or policy discussions with senior staff makes little sense to us since our policy leaders won't be included. >> >> I agree that the existing proposed topics are a sufficient start so we could focus on those initially. I also think it could be useful for the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs to be there - simply as an opportunity for them to better understand our concerns and ways of working. Remote participation from other members of the NCPH community, who are not able to travel to LA is also very important for this meeting to be a success so I was glad to see it will be provided for. >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: >> >>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, Michael and Rafik; >>> >>> Because I think a number of you have been traveling, this is just a quick reminder of the opportunity to pass on to the list any feedback on the consensus date and location you might have by COB today/tomorrow ? Wednesday. We'll be proceeding with the consensus date and location plans outlined in my original message below unless substantial objections are expressed by the deadline. >>> >>> Any other comments or thoughts you have regarding the proposed meeting scope, program/agenda, supported traveler counts or next steps are welcomed going forward. Absent objections, I'll formally confirm the date and location with you shortly so everyone can "save the date". >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On 11/1/12 9:54 PM, "Robert Hoggarth" wrote: >>> >>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, Michael and Rafik; >>> >>> Thanks for all your inputs before and during the Toronto meeting on the topic of an Inter-Sessional meeting of the GNSO Non Contracted Parties in January 2013. >>> >>> This email summarizes the consensus to date and the actions that Staff is taking to make the meeting arrangements. I have used a format similar to my last pre-Toronto communiqu?. I wish the note could be shorter, but I wanted to be sure to touch as many bases as possible. Also, please note the response/reaction/feedback deadline of COB next Wednesday, 7 November at the end of this message. >>> >>> Date: >>> >>> 1. General agreement on last week of January with preference as late in the week as possible. Hotel space and senior staff availability make January 29 and 30, 2013 the most ideal dates and Staff is pursuing that option. We hope to be able to lock that date down next week after your feedback. >>> >>> Location: >>> >>> 2. Given the priority of senior Staff attendance/collaboration, availability of event space, travel options and cost efficiencies of having an in-house meeting, the ICANN office in Los Angeles, California offers the best location for the pilot meeting and absent serious objections, that is what planning staff is now focused on. >>> >>> Meeting Scope: >>> >>> 3. Planners seemed to agree that an inter-sessional meeting with focused discussion on big picture/high level and strategic matters combined with specific operational discussions would be quite useful to thecommunity. Specific session topics have been proposed and identified. A list is provided at the bottom/end of the attached draft program/agenda. >>> >>> 4. Planners agreed that senior ICANN Staff participation in the event is a critical component of a successful inter-sessional pilot meeting. We have confirmed a critical mass of senior staff will be available on January 29 and 30, 2013 in Los Angeles. >>> >>> 5. There was recognition that the first pilot gathering should be smaller and more focused to help confirm ICANN strategic directions and resource commitments and to explore collaboration opportunities betweenICANN Staff and the NCPH (Non Contract Party House) community. Consensus is 6-10 attendees from each constituency. Based on our research and cost estimates, meeting room space and budget constraints will keep the number closer to the bottom end of that range. >>> >>> 6. The size of the ICANN LA office necessarily limits meeting participation to a maximum of approximately 50 in-person meeting attendees. This count would allow for 13 GNSO NCPH council members, plus 4 additional attendees from each Constituency (4*5=20), plus an additional 3 attendees from each stakeholdergroup (3*2=6), for an initial proposed total of 39 community attendees (plus Staff participation). If all travelers are funded at the standard expected rate of $3,000 per trip (total airfare and hotel costs) then additional funds would be available for food, meeting logistics (e.g., remote participation and scribes, etc.) and additional representational attendance from the contracted parties (see para 10 below)would also be an option. >>> >>> 7. The proposed 40 attendee/traveler number can be adjusted up or down based on further discussions, but would satisfy the consensus view that each Constituency should have the flexibility to bring additional communitymembers who might have expertise on the particular topics or agenda items that will be determined for the meeting agenda. We are also mindful of the budget constraints for this project and the 40 traveler number helps us meet that objective. Note that remote participation capabilities will give us furtherflexibility. >>> >>> 8. Planners noted that some of the meeting time could be devoted to individual community discussions or caucus opportunities as well. Staff has kept this option in mind and we have identified space and agenda availability for as many as 5 simultaneous breakout meetings of approximately 8 people to meet at some point during the meeting agenda. That time slot can also potentially be adjusted based on the specific needs or interests of each of your communities. >>> >>> Meeting Agenda: >>> >>> 9. A number of you mentioned prospective meeting topics. They are listed at the bottom of the draft meeting schedule/agenda attached to this email. It has been suggested that each Constituency could host and lead the discussions of at least one meeting topic, so the draft agenda table provides an opportunity for you to indicate interest in volunteering to host/chair a topic. >>> >>> 10. During one of our discussions, an interest was expressed in having members of the contract community also participate in the meeting. The contracted parties are planning their own inter-sessional event in Amsterdam one week before the proposed NCPH meeting in LA so substantial participation from that community may not be possible. In Toronto, I did mention the possibility of meeting participation to the new GNSO Council Chair (Jonathan Robinson) and the new Vice Chair from the GNSO Contracted Parties House (Mason Cole). Both fellows expressed an interest in the NCPH meeting ? chiefly for the potential value of future information exchange and collaboration opportunities. The planning group may still wish to explore an agenda item on the role of the GNSO Council or on the future policy working relationship with contract parties. Even remote participation from Jonathan or Mason may prove to be helpful in this regard. Just a thought. >>> >>> Travel Support: >>> >>> 11. As noted in items 7 and 8 above, travel funding will be made available for all community travelers. Based on an average of $3,000 total travel costs per each traveler (economy air fare, plus two or three hotel nights), a group of 40 people would appear to meet the projected budget for the proposed pilot effort. Increasing that number would probably require us to cut out a reception. >>> >>> 12. Scribing and remote participation capabilities will enable us to expand meeting attendance to ensure participation by community members who might not be able to travel to the meeting. Staff is factoring those costs into the logistics and potential costs for the meeting. >>> >>> Next Steps: >>> >>> 13. Please take some time to review these materials and provide feedback to the circulation list by no later than COB your local time next Wednesday, 7 November. If you have any serious objections to the proposed meeting dates or the LA location please express them as soon as possible so that we can recalibrate. Absent a serious objection, we will lock down that date and the LA location next week (on 7 November) so that you can announce the meeting to your respective communities as appropriate. If I hear from all of the communities earlier than 7 November, we'll lock things down faster. >>> >>> 14. Suggestions for ?tweeking? the remaining logistics and developing the program/agenda topics and times are most welcomed and can be worked out over the next couple of weeks of regular emails. I will manage that process through regular emails and requests for your feedback. Please feel free to red-line comment and edit the attached draft program schedule agenda ? particularly filling in where you may wish to volunteer chair/host a particular topic. Session Chair volunteers will be accepted on a first-come first-served basis. Each Constituency should have the opportunity to host at least one of the six (or more) topic sessions. So feel free to volunteer in your feedback note to the group. >>> >>> >>> Thanks again for your help in getting this effort organized! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rob >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Thu Nov 8 08:19:33 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:19:33 +0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_--_For_Review_and_Feedback_--_GNSO_I?= =?utf-8?q?nter-Sessional_Meeting_Planning_Consensus_-_Pls_Respond_By_COB_?= =?utf-8?q?7_November_-=C2=AD_This_Wednesday?= In-Reply-To: <625CDF8F-56B7-4032-8C36-6D0745AECF52@ipjustice.org> References: <625CDF8F-56B7-4032-8C36-6D0745AECF52@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <8403F5AB-B054-444F-ACD4-0F371E1FFE26@uzh.ch> Hi from Baku Sorry to be behind on this thread, terrible connectivity + busy. I support everything Robin's said, especially re: inclusion of the SG-wide elected PC in addition to constituency reps. The two SGs are structured differently and there must be fairness and hence numerical parity if we are to have a meeting that is not marred by contention from the outset. Best Bill On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:41, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks, Robert. I am a member of the NCSG-PC (the only one engaged in this discussion from the NCSG-PC at this point. Both Bill and Rafik were previously on the NCSG-PC, but since last month's GNSO Council elections, they are no longer members of the NCSG-PC). We are currently in-between chairs for the NCSG-PC. In the meantime I can act as a go-between with this discussion and the PC -- I'm just letting this group know that the NCSG-PC as a group will want to be involved in the planning and coordination of this meeting, since it is the NCSG leadership who should be coordinating the discussions on behalf of noncommercial users. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Robin. I just saw your message after transmitting my earlier note. >> >> I will incorporate your feedback with the other comments that are being shared in my communique next week. I would note that not all topics addressed at the January meeting may be strictly policy related, but I'm sure the inputs from the NCSG PC will be welcomed on those relevant topics. To keep the planning group manageable, may I suggest you identify the Chair of that committee and we can involve that individual in the planning discussions/correspondence. Since we are now moving to the program/agenda phase of the planning effort, perhaps you'll want that individual to take over the planning responsibilities/representation of the NCSG. In the meantime, I'll let others on the list comment on your other thoughts. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 11/7/12 7:36 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> >> Dear Robert: >> >> Thanks for moving this forward. LA works for NCSG as the location. Although given the location of LA, an outreach meeting probably isn't the best use of the time, as there are no shortages of Californians at ICANN, but an intra-constituency discussions would be a better use of that time and resources. The proposed dates of January 29-30, 2013 are good for NCSG also. >> >> Support and participation should be divided equally between the NCSG and the CSG (rather than divided by constituency as that disadvantages the noncommercial participants who were all forced into a single constituency until very recently). This was agreed by the CSG and NCSG leaders at the NCPH meeting in Toronto, so that baseline principle needs to be factored into the planning and organization of this meeting. >> >> It is important the ICANN staff coordinate the organization of the specifics of the discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee. The NCSG Policy Committee is primarily responsible for developing NCSG policy positions, and so the coordination and participation of the NCSG-PC in these discussions in January with senior staff is indispensable. Therefore it is most likely to be members of the NCSG-PC who should be leading discussions from the NC side of the house - the same applies for the framing of topical discussions. It is important to remember that the two sides of the NCP House are organized differently internally, with NCSG working across the entire SG to represent members on policy matters as per the NCSG Charter. If CSG wishes to coordinate its policy development according to constituencies, that is its right. But NCSG's charter is explicit that policy development primarily happens at an SG level, so these meetings and discussions should not impose the CSG model onto the NCSG by not coordinating with the NCSG-PC. Any travel support should be provided to the NCSG Policy Committee as part of the package or policy discussions with senior staff makes little sense to us since our policy leaders won't be included. >> >> I agree that the existing proposed topics are a sufficient start so we could focus on those initially. I also think it could be useful for the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs to be there - simply as an opportunity for them to better understand our concerns and ways of working. Remote participation from other members of the NCPH community, who are not able to travel to LA is also very important for this meeting to be a success so I was glad to see it will be provided for. >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: >> >>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, Michael and Rafik; >>> >>> Because I think a number of you have been traveling, this is just a quick reminder of the opportunity to pass on to the list any feedback on the consensus date and location you might have by COB today/tomorrow ? Wednesday. We'll be proceeding with the consensus date and location plans outlined in my original message below unless substantial objections are expressed by the deadline. >>> >>> Any other comments or thoughts you have regarding the proposed meeting scope, program/agenda, supported traveler counts or next steps are welcomed going forward. Absent objections, I'll formally confirm the date and location with you shortly so everyone can "save the date". >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On 11/1/12 9:54 PM, "Robert Hoggarth" wrote: >>> >>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, Michael and Rafik; >>> >>> Thanks for all your inputs before and during the Toronto meeting on the topic of an Inter-Sessional meeting of the GNSO Non Contracted Parties in January 2013. >>> >>> This email summarizes the consensus to date and the actions that Staff is taking to make the meeting arrangements. I have used a format similar to my last pre-Toronto communiqu?. I wish the note could be shorter, but I wanted to be sure to touch as many bases as possible. Also, please note the response/reaction/feedback deadline of COB next Wednesday, 7 November at the end of this message. >>> >>> Date: >>> >>> 1. General agreement on last week of January with preference as late in the week as possible. Hotel space and senior staff availability make January 29 and 30, 2013 the most ideal dates and Staff is pursuing that option. We hope to be able to lock that date down next week after your feedback. >>> >>> Location: >>> >>> 2. Given the priority of senior Staff attendance/collaboration, availability of event space, travel options and cost efficiencies of having an in-house meeting, the ICANN office in Los Angeles, California offers the best location for the pilot meeting and absent serious objections, that is what planning staff is now focused on. >>> >>> Meeting Scope: >>> >>> 3. Planners seemed to agree that an inter-sessional meeting with focused discussion on big picture/high level and strategic matters combined with specific operational discussions would be quite useful to thecommunity. Specific session topics have been proposed and identified. A list is provided at the bottom/end of the attached draft program/agenda. >>> >>> 4. Planners agreed that senior ICANN Staff participation in the event is a critical component of a successful inter-sessional pilot meeting. We have confirmed a critical mass of senior staff will be available on January 29 and 30, 2013 in Los Angeles. >>> >>> 5. There was recognition that the first pilot gathering should be smaller and more focused to help confirm ICANN strategic directions and resource commitments and to explore collaboration opportunities betweenICANN Staff and the NCPH (Non Contract Party House) community. Consensus is 6-10 attendees from each constituency. Based on our research and cost estimates, meeting room space and budget constraints will keep the number closer to the bottom end of that range. >>> >>> 6. The size of the ICANN LA office necessarily limits meeting participation to a maximum of approximately 50 in-person meeting attendees. This count would allow for 13 GNSO NCPH council members, plus 4 additional attendees from each Constituency (4*5=20), plus an additional 3 attendees from each stakeholdergroup (3*2=6), for an initial proposed total of 39 community attendees (plus Staff participation). If all travelers are funded at the standard expected rate of $3,000 per trip (total airfare and hotel costs) then additional funds would be available for food, meeting logistics (e.g., remote participation and scribes, etc.) and additional representational attendance from the contracted parties (see para 10 below)would also be an option. >>> >>> 7. The proposed 40 attendee/traveler number can be adjusted up or down based on further discussions, but would satisfy the consensus view that each Constituency should have the flexibility to bring additional communitymembers who might have expertise on the particular topics or agenda items that will be determined for the meeting agenda. We are also mindful of the budget constraints for this project and the 40 traveler number helps us meet that objective. Note that remote participation capabilities will give us furtherflexibility. >>> >>> 8. Planners noted that some of the meeting time could be devoted to individual community discussions or caucus opportunities as well. Staff has kept this option in mind and we have identified space and agenda availability for as many as 5 simultaneous breakout meetings of approximately 8 people to meet at some point during the meeting agenda. That time slot can also potentially be adjusted based on the specific needs or interests of each of your communities. >>> >>> Meeting Agenda: >>> >>> 9. A number of you mentioned prospective meeting topics. They are listed at the bottom of the draft meeting schedule/agenda attached to this email. It has been suggested that each Constituency could host and lead the discussions of at least one meeting topic, so the draft agenda table provides an opportunity for you to indicate interest in volunteering to host/chair a topic. >>> >>> 10. During one of our discussions, an interest was expressed in having members of the contract community also participate in the meeting. The contracted parties are planning their own inter-sessional event in Amsterdam one week before the proposed NCPH meeting in LA so substantial participation from that community may not be possible. In Toronto, I did mention the possibility of meeting participation to the new GNSO Council Chair (Jonathan Robinson) and the new Vice Chair from the GNSO Contracted Parties House (Mason Cole). Both fellows expressed an interest in the NCPH meeting ? chiefly for the potential value of future information exchange and collaboration opportunities. The planning group may still wish to explore an agenda item on the role of the GNSO Council or on the future policy working relationship with contract parties. Even remote participation from Jonathan or Mason may prove to be helpful in this regard. Just a thought. >>> >>> Travel Support: >>> >>> 11. As noted in items 7 and 8 above, travel funding will be made available for all community travelers. Based on an average of $3,000 total travel costs per each traveler (economy air fare, plus two or three hotel nights), a group of 40 people would appear to meet the projected budget for the proposed pilot effort. Increasing that number would probably require us to cut out a reception. >>> >>> 12. Scribing and remote participation capabilities will enable us to expand meeting attendance to ensure participation by community members who might not be able to travel to the meeting. Staff is factoring those costs into the logistics and potential costs for the meeting. >>> >>> Next Steps: >>> >>> 13. Please take some time to review these materials and provide feedback to the circulation list by no later than COB your local time next Wednesday, 7 November. If you have any serious objections to the proposed meeting dates or the LA location please express them as soon as possible so that we can recalibrate. Absent a serious objection, we will lock down that date and the LA location next week (on 7 November) so that you can announce the meeting to your respective communities as appropriate. If I hear from all of the communities earlier than 7 November, we'll lock things down faster. >>> >>> 14. Suggestions for ?tweeking? the remaining logistics and developing the program/agenda topics and times are most welcomed and can be worked out over the next couple of weeks of regular emails. I will manage that process through regular emails and requests for your feedback. Please feel free to red-line comment and edit the attached draft program schedule agenda ? particularly filling in where you may wish to volunteer chair/host a particular topic. Session Chair volunteers will be accepted on a first-come first-served basis. Each Constituency should have the opportunity to host at least one of the six (or more) topic sessions. So feel free to volunteer in your feedback note to the group. >>> >>> >>> Thanks again for your help in getting this effort organized! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rob >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kleiman Thu Nov 8 18:35:50 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:35:50 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi All, I'm glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on implementation - and which of the two designs we should go with. Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the "alternate model"). From a policy perspective, it doesn't seems to matter, and the design seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy seem to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate model. One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea as a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don't like the idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise Periods. Comments welcome! But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for their eight points - really seven now. Fadi's giving them at least 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD's Sunrise Period, so #1 is taken of (and creatively too!). But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation designs being decided upon "precluded" these plans "as a possibility... These issues will be the topic of the AM Session, currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively and well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room. That's the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels. All the best, Kathy From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM To: NCSG-Policy Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clearinghouse/ Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and recorded in the Clearinghouse. * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of domain names. * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during the domain name registration process. Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. Here is a summary of our findings: Trademark Submission and Verification Publication of Functional Specifications ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support those parties who will be implementing and building internal processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. TLD Launch and Sunrise Information ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. Communications and Training Activities We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range of volume and service roles), training "tracks" will help Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery partner in the near term. Sunrise Implementation Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file are matters for follow-up discussions. Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise The group discussed the degree of "matching" that should be required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the information, and that flexibility is important to trademark holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. However, registries are free to perform additional verification steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to sunrise registrations. Trademark Claims Implementation Centralized and De-centralized Features Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and decentralized systems, and agreed to support a "hybrid" system for Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don't download the list of names with the frequency required. Registry guidelines All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN's publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and registries have discretion to extend both periods. Data protection There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to other parties. Next Steps The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and pricing. My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their contributions to this effort. We made real progress! Best, Fadi IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Nov 10 19:04:50 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:04:50 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms In-Reply-To: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <06A618F5-ACEC-4877-9369-B7F83862C9AE@ipjustice.org> Kathy, Thank you so much for all your work in the last couple of weeks on these last minute IPC-BC demands. You've already made a big difference! For those who don't know, Kathy participated remotely in the Brussels discussion and made a huge difference in stopping the IPC-BC in their tracks quite a few times, by providing Fadi with context and perspective he hadn't heard before. I was also on the calls and he really did listen to her and agree with the NCSG position several times in the discussion. It was encouraging to see Fadi may be educable about issues. (Although I'm still concerned that he doesn't recognize the need for equality of participation among impacted stakeholders). Since the Brussels discussions, Kathy organized calls with the Registries, Registrars, At-Large, and ICANN staff where she and I have been going through these 8-point demands in detail and reaching understanding and agreement with the other stakeholders on how to address them (since most points are re-opening closed policies). I think the community will be able to prevent most of the demands from becoming policy this coming week in the final discussion in LA on Thursday. The CSG will have 12-16 representatives in LA to lobby for re-opening policy (plus we hear they have some new demands that they have been cooking up in 3 CSG working groups). The contracted parties will have 5-7 representatives in LA for this discussion. I will be there for NCSG in person, plus Kathy will be participating via telephone. I'm hopeful that Wendy and Konstantinos can also join via phone. Fadi was clear in the Brussels discussions in stating that any proposals for policy changes have to go through the policy development process. So Thursday should be listening to the IPC-BC moan and wail about the world coming to an end because the Internet is growing, and then the rest of the community saying "sorry, we already decided these policy matters. Take them back to GNSO if you want changes." We shall see. Thanks again, Kathy! Best, Robin On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > I?m glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two > days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary > from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on > implementation ? and which of the two designs we should go with. > Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the > Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the ?alternate model?). From a > policy perspective, it doesn?t seems to matter, and the design > seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy seem > to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate > model. > > One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in > TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea as > a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don?t like the > idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often > register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise > Periods. Comments welcome! > > But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for > their eight points ? really seven now. Fadi?s giving them at least > 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD?s Sunrise Period, so > #1 is taken of (and creatively too!). > > But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely > horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations > (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation > designs being decided upon ?precluded? these plans ?as a > possibility? These issues will be the topic of the AM Session, > currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly > implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively and > well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room. > > That?s the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels. > All the best, > Kathy > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- > bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM > To: NCSG-Policy > Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC > proposals for rpms > > http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable- > trademark-clearinghouse/ > > Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse > > by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 > > Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work > with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the > Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: > > * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and > recorded in the Clearinghouse. > * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use > Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of > domain names. > * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars > will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during > the domain name registration process. > > Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial > Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry > stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on > implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. > > Here is a summary of our findings: > Trademark Submission and Verification > Publication of Functional Specifications > > ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark > submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in > December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be > available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support > those parties who will be implementing and building internal > processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. > TLD Launch and Sunrise Information > > ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate > information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options > we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central > web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD > sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion > will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan > effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such > capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. > Communications and Training Activities > > We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted > periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the > implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity > of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range > of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help > Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most > useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step > guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN > will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery > partner in the near term. > Sunrise Implementation > Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files > > The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which > Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form > of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public > key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in > the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file > are matters for follow-up discussions. > Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise > > The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be > required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a > domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that > a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the > information, and that flexibility is important to trademark > holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. > However, registries are free to perform additional verification > steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are > available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to > sunrise registrations. > Trademark Claims Implementation > Centralized and De-centralized Features > > Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and > decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for > Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels > derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and > hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all > registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system > would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse > when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective > registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was > agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the > Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download the > list of names with the frequency required. > Registry guidelines > > All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day > sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the > at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed > to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional > clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s > publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and > claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and > registries have discretion to extend both periods. > Data protection > > There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for > access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures > were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the > Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the > rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark > Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular > purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be > ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to > other parties. > Next Steps > > The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid > ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next > week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send > representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service > provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and > Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC > proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new > gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus > policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework > for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and > pricing. > > My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their > contributions to this effort. We made real progress! > > Best, > > Fadi > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat Nov 10 21:54:20 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:54:20 +0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms In-Reply-To: <06A618F5-ACEC-4877-9369-B7F83862C9AE@ipjustice.org> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <06A618F5-ACEC-4877-9369-B7F83862C9AE@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: This sounds really good. Thanks for the effort. Let me know if there is anything I can do remotely. Robin Gross wrote: >Kathy, > >Thank you so much for all your work in the last couple of weeks on >these last minute IPC-BC demands. You've already made a big >difference! > >For those who don't know, Kathy participated remotely in the Brussels >discussion and made a huge difference in stopping the IPC-BC in their >tracks quite a few times, by providing Fadi with context and >perspective he hadn't heard before. I was also on the calls and he >really did listen to her and agree with the NCSG position several >times in the discussion. It was encouraging to see Fadi may be >educable about issues. (Although I'm still concerned that he doesn't >recognize the need for equality of participation among impacted >stakeholders). > >Since the Brussels discussions, Kathy organized calls with the >Registries, Registrars, At-Large, and ICANN staff where she and I >have been going through these 8-point demands in detail and reaching >understanding and agreement with the other stakeholders on how to >address them (since most points are re-opening closed policies). > >I think the community will be able to prevent most of the demands >from becoming policy this coming week in the final discussion in LA >on Thursday. The CSG will have 12-16 representatives in LA to lobby >for re-opening policy (plus we hear they have some new demands that >they have been cooking up in 3 CSG working groups). The contracted >parties will have 5-7 representatives in LA for this discussion. I >will be there for NCSG in person, plus Kathy will be participating >via telephone. I'm hopeful that Wendy and Konstantinos can also join >via phone. > >Fadi was clear in the Brussels discussions in stating that any >proposals for policy changes have to go through the policy >development process. So Thursday should be listening to the IPC-BC >moan and wail about the world coming to an end because the Internet >is growing, and then the rest of the community saying "sorry, we >already decided these policy matters. Take them back to GNSO if you >want changes." We shall see. > >Thanks again, Kathy! > >Best, >Robin > > >On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > >> Hi All, >> I?m glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two >> days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary >> from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on >> implementation ? and which of the two designs we should go with. >> Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the >> Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the ?alternate model?). From a >> policy perspective, it doesn?t seems to matter, and the design >> seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy seem >> to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate >> model. >> >> One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in >> TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea as >> a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don?t like the >> idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often >> register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise >> Periods. Comments welcome! >> >> But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for >> their eight points ? really seven now. Fadi?s giving them at least >> 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD?s Sunrise Period, so >> #1 is taken of (and creatively too!). >> >> But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely >> horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations >> (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation >> designs being decided upon ?precluded? these plans ?as a >> possibility? These issues will be the topic of the AM Session, >> currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly >> implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively and >> well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room. >> >> That?s the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels. >> All the best, >> Kathy >> >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- >> bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM >> To: NCSG-Policy >> Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC >> proposals for rpms >> >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable- >> trademark-clearinghouse/ >> >> Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse >> >> by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 >> >> Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work >> with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the >> Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: >> >> * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and >> recorded in the Clearinghouse. >> * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use >> Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of >> domain names. >> * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars >> will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during >> the domain name registration process. >> >> Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial >> Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry >> stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on >> implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. >> >> Here is a summary of our findings: >> Trademark Submission and Verification >> Publication of Functional Specifications >> >> ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark >> submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in >> December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be >> available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support >> those parties who will be implementing and building internal >> processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. >> TLD Launch and Sunrise Information >> >> ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate >> information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options >> we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central >> web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD >> sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion >> will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan >> effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such >> capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. >> Communications and Training Activities >> >> We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted >> periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the >> implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity >> of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range >> of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help >> Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most >> useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step >> guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN >> will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery >> partner in the near term. >> Sunrise Implementation >> Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files >> >> The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which >> Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form >> of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public >> key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in >> the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file >> are matters for follow-up discussions. >> Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise >> >> The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be >> required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a >> domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that >> a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the >> information, and that flexibility is important to trademark >> holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. >> However, registries are free to perform additional verification >> steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are >> available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to >> sunrise registrations. >> Trademark Claims Implementation >> Centralized and De-centralized Features >> >> Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and >> decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for >> Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels >> derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and >> hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all >> registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system >> would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse >> when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective >> registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was >> agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the >> Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download the >> list of names with the frequency required. >> Registry guidelines >> >> All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day >> sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the >> at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed >> to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional >> clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s >> publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and >> claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and >> registries have discretion to extend both periods. >> Data protection >> >> There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for >> access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures >> were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the >> Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the >> rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark >> Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular >> purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be >> ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to >> other parties. >> Next Steps >> >> The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid >> ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next >> week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send >> representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service >> provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and >> Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC >> proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new >> gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus >> policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework >> for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and >> pricing. >> >> My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their >> contributions to this effort. We made real progress! >> >> Best, >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >PC-NCSG mailing list >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg ~~~ avri Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Sun Nov 11 08:01:19 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:01:19 +0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms In-Reply-To: References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <06A618F5-ACEC-4877-9369-B7F83862C9AE@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <37DB50C0-DC52-4811-AE61-F4F528921F8A@uzh.ch> Indeed, bravo! A good test case for Fadi's "multi-equal stakeholder" [sic] shtick, if he blows that early it won't help. On Nov 10, 2012, at 23:54, Avri Doria wrote: > This sounds really good. Thanks for the effort. > Let me know if there is anything I can do remotely. > > Robin Gross wrote: > > >Kathy, > > > >Thank you so much for all your work in the last couple of weeks on > >these last minute IPC-BC demands. You've already made a big > >difference! > > > >For those who don't know, Kathy participated remotely in the Brussels > >discussion and made a huge difference in stopping the IPC-BC in their > >tracks quite a few times, by providing Fadi with context and > >perspective he hadn't heard before. I was also on the calls and he > >really did listen to her and agree with the NCSG position several > >times in the discussion. It was encouraging to see Fadi may be > >educable about issues. (Although I'm still concerned that he doesn't > >recognize the need for equality of participation among impacted > >stakeholders). > > > >Since the Brussels discussions, Kathy organized calls with the > >Registries, Registrars, At-Large, and ICANN staff where she and I > >have been going through these 8-point demands in detail and reaching > >understanding and agreement with the other stakeholders on how to > >address them (since most points are re-opening closed policies). > > > >I think the community will be able to prevent most of the demands > >from becoming policy this coming week in the final discussion in LA > >on Thursday. The CSG will have 12-16 representatives in LA to lobby > >for re-opening policy (plus we hear they have some new demands that > >they have been cooking up in 3 CSG working groups). The contracted > >parties will have 5-7 representatives in LA for this discussion. I > >will be there for NCSG in person, plus Kathy will be participating > >via telephone. I'm hopeful that Wendy and Konstantinos can also join > >via phone. > > > >Fadi was clear in the Brussels discussions in stating that any > >proposals for policy changes have to go through the policy > >development process. So Thursday should be listening to the IPC-BC > >moan and wail about the world coming to an end because the Internet > >is growing, and then the rest of the community saying "sorry, we > >already decided these policy matters. Take them back to GNSO if you > >want changes." We shall see. > > > >Thanks again, Kathy! > > > >Best, > >Robin > > > > > >On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> I?m glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two > >> days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary > >> from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on > >> implementation ? and which of the two designs we should go with. > >> Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the > >> Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the ?alternate model?). From a > >> policy perspective, it doesn?t seems to matter, and the design > >> seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy seem > >> to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate > >> model. > >> > >> One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in > >> TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea as > >> a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don?t like the > >> idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often > >> register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise > >> Periods. Comments welcome! > >> > >> But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for > >> their eight points ? really seven now. Fadi?s giving them at least > >> 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD?s Sunrise Period, so > >> #1 is taken of (and creatively too!). > >> > >> But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely > >> horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations > >> (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation > >> designs being decided upon ?precluded? these plans ?as a > >> possibility? These issues will be the topic of the AM Session, > >> currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly > >> implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively and > >> well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room. > >> > >> That?s the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels. > >> All the best, > >> Kathy > >> > >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- > >> bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM > >> To: NCSG-Policy > >> Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC > >> proposals for rpms > >> > >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable- > >> trademark-clearinghouse/ > >> > >> Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse > >> > >> by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 > >> > >> Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work > >> with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the > >> Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: > >> > >> * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and > >> recorded in the Clearinghouse. > >> * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use > >> Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of > >> domain names. > >> * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars > >> will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during > >> the domain name registration process. > >> > >> Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial > >> Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry > >> stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on > >> implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. > >> > >> Here is a summary of our findings: > >> Trademark Submission and Verification > >> Publication of Functional Specifications > >> > >> ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark > >> submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in > >> December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be > >> available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support > >> those parties who will be implementing and building internal > >> processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. > >> TLD Launch and Sunrise Information > >> > >> ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate > >> information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options > >> we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central > >> web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD > >> sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion > >> will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan > >> effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such > >> capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. > >> Communications and Training Activities > >> > >> We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted > >> periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the > >> implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity > >> of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range > >> of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help > >> Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most > >> useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step > >> guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN > >> will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery > >> partner in the near term. > >> Sunrise Implementation > >> Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files > >> > >> The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which > >> Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form > >> of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public > >> key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in > >> the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file > >> are matters for follow-up discussions. > >> Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise > >> > >> The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be > >> required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a > >> domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that > >> a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the > >> information, and that flexibility is important to trademark > >> holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. > >> However, registries are free to perform additional verification > >> steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are > >> available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to > >> sunrise registrations. > >> Trademark Claims Implementation > >> Centralized and De-centralized Features > >> > >> Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and > >> decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for > >> Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels > >> derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and > >> hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all > >> registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system > >> would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse > >> when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective > >> registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was > >> agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the > >> Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download the > >> list of names with the frequency required. > >> Registry guidelines > >> > >> All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day > >> sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the > >> at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed > >> to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional > >> clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s > >> publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and > >> claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and > >> registries have discretion to extend both periods. > >> Data protection > >> > >> There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for > >> access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures > >> were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the > >> Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the > >> rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark > >> Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular > >> purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be > >> ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to > >> other parties. > >> Next Steps > >> > >> The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid > >> ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next > >> week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send > >> representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service > >> provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and > >> Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC > >> proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new > >> gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus > >> policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework > >> for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and > >> pricing. > >> > >> My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their > >> contributions to this effort. We made real progress! > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Fadi > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> IP JUSTICE > >> Robin Gross, Executive Director > >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> IP JUSTICE > >> Robin Gross, Executive Director > >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >IP JUSTICE > >Robin Gross, Executive Director > >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >PC-NCSG mailing list > >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > ~~~ > avri > Avri Doria > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Nov 11 08:44:23 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:44:23 +0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms In-Reply-To: <37DB50C0-DC52-4811-AE61-F4F528921F8A@uzh.ch> References: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24912AF5@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <06A618F5-ACEC-4877-9369-B7F83862C9AE@ipjustice.org> <37DB50C0-DC52-4811-AE61-F4F528921F8A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <0d865784-5bbb-4810-97ba-2d9ff5e5eaa5@email.android.com> Hasn't he already blown it, at least a bit, by restricting the number of participants to unequal numbers? William Drake wrote: >Indeed, bravo! A good test case for Fadi's "multi-equal stakeholder" >[sic] shtick, if he blows that early it won't help. > >On Nov 10, 2012, at 23:54, Avri Doria wrote: > >> This sounds really good. Thanks for the effort. >> Let me know if there is anything I can do remotely. >> >> Robin Gross wrote: >> >> >Kathy, >> > >> >Thank you so much for all your work in the last couple of weeks on >> >these last minute IPC-BC demands. You've already made a big >> >difference! >> > >> >For those who don't know, Kathy participated remotely in the >Brussels >> >discussion and made a huge difference in stopping the IPC-BC in >their >> >tracks quite a few times, by providing Fadi with context and >> >perspective he hadn't heard before. I was also on the calls and he >> >really did listen to her and agree with the NCSG position several >> >times in the discussion. It was encouraging to see Fadi may be >> >educable about issues. (Although I'm still concerned that he doesn't > >> >recognize the need for equality of participation among impacted >> >stakeholders). >> > >> >Since the Brussels discussions, Kathy organized calls with the >> >Registries, Registrars, At-Large, and ICANN staff where she and I >> >have been going through these 8-point demands in detail and reaching > >> >understanding and agreement with the other stakeholders on how to >> >address them (since most points are re-opening closed policies). >> > >> >I think the community will be able to prevent most of the demands >> >from becoming policy this coming week in the final discussion in LA >> >on Thursday. The CSG will have 12-16 representatives in LA to lobby >> >for re-opening policy (plus we hear they have some new demands that >> >they have been cooking up in 3 CSG working groups). The contracted >> >parties will have 5-7 representatives in LA for this discussion. I >> >will be there for NCSG in person, plus Kathy will be participating >> >via telephone. I'm hopeful that Wendy and Konstantinos can also join > >> >via phone. >> > >> >Fadi was clear in the Brussels discussions in stating that any >> >proposals for policy changes have to go through the policy >> >development process. So Thursday should be listening to the IPC-BC >> >moan and wail about the world coming to an end because the Internet >> >is growing, and then the rest of the community saying "sorry, we >> >already decided these policy matters. Take them back to GNSO if you >> >want changes." We shall see. >> > >> >Thanks again, Kathy! >> > >> >Best, >> >Robin >> > >> > >> >On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote: >> > >> >> Hi All, >> >> I?m glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two >> >> days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary > >> >> from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on >> >> implementation ? and which of the two designs we should go with. >> >> Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the >> >> Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the ?alternate model?). From a >> >> policy perspective, it doesn?t seems to matter, and the design >> >> seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy >seem >> >> to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate >> >> model. >> >> >> >> One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in >> >> TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea >as >> >> a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don?t like the >> >> idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often >> >> register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise >> >> Periods. Comments welcome! >> >> >> >> But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for > >> >> their eight points ? really seven now. Fadi?s giving them at least > >> >> 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD?s Sunrise Period, so >> >> #1 is taken of (and creatively too!). >> >> >> >> But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely >> >> horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations >> >> (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation >> >> designs being decided upon ?precluded? these plans ?as a >> >> possibility? These issues will be the topic of the AM Session, >> >> currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly >> >> implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively >and >> >> well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room. >> >> >> >> That?s the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels. >> >> All the best, >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg- >> >> bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM >> >> To: NCSG-Policy >> >> Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC >> >> proposals for rpms >> >> >> >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable- >> >> trademark-clearinghouse/ >> >> >> >> Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse >> >> >> >> by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012 >> >> >> >> Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to >work >> >> with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the >> >> Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: >> >> >> >> * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and >> >> recorded in the Clearinghouse. >> >> * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use >> >> Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration >of >> >> domain names. >> >> * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars >> >> will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during >> >> the domain name registration process. >> >> >> >> Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial >> >> Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry >> >> stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion >on >> >> implementation approaches, and found common ground in several >areas. >> >> >> >> Here is a summary of our findings: >> >> Trademark Submission and Verification >> >> Publication of Functional Specifications >> >> >> >> ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark >> >> submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in >> >> December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will >be >> >> available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to >support >> >> those parties who will be implementing and building internal >> >> processes and systems to work with this element of the >Clearinghouse. >> >> TLD Launch and Sunrise Information >> >> >> >> ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate > >> >> information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options > >> >> we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central >> >> web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD >> >> sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion >> >> will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan >> >> effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such >> >> capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. >> >> Communications and Training Activities >> >> >> >> We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted >> >> periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the >> >> implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity > >> >> of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a >range >> >> of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help >> >> Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most >> >> useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step >> >> guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN >> >> will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its >delivery >> >> partner in the near term. >> >> Sunrise Implementation >> >> Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files >> >> >> >> The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which >> >> Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the >form >> >> of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse >public >> >> key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name >in >> >> the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file > >> >> are matters for follow-up discussions. >> >> Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise >> >> >> >> The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be >> >> required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a > >> >> domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given >that >> >> a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the >> >> information, and that flexibility is important to trademark >> >> holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. >> >> However, registries are free to perform additional verification >> >> steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are >> >> available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to >> >> sunrise registrations. >> >> Trademark Claims Implementation >> >> Centralized and De-centralized Features >> >> >> >> Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and >> >> decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for > >> >> Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels >> >> derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and >> >> hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all >> >> registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system > >> >> would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse > >> >> when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective >> >> registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was > >> >> agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the >> >> Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download >the >> >> list of names with the frequency required. >> >> Registry guidelines >> >> >> >> All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day >> >> sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the >> >> at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants >agreed >> >> to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional >> >> clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s >> >> publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise >and >> >> claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and >> >> registries have discretion to extend both periods. >> >> Data protection >> >> >> >> There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for >> >> access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures >> >> were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the >> >> Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the >> >> rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark >> >> Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular > >> >> purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be >> >> ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided >to >> >> other parties. >> >> Next Steps >> >> >> >> The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid >> >> ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings >next >> >> week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send >> >> representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse >service >> >> provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and >> >> Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC >> >> proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new >> >> gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus >> >> policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework >> >> for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and >> >> pricing. >> >> >> >> My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their >> >> contributions to this effort. We made real progress! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >IP JUSTICE >> >Robin Gross, Executive Director >> >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >PC-NCSG mailing list >> >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> ~~~ >> avri >> Avri Doria >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Nov 15 01:47:01 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:47:01 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed language edit for the WG charter References: Message-ID: fyi Mary was there for the whole call, I was only there for part. not really sure i understand the issue. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Brian Peck > Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter > Date: 14 November 2012 17:49:50 EST > To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" > Cc: Margie Milam , Berry Cobb Mail > > To Members of the IGO-INGO Working Group: > > During the call today a proposal was submitted to the WG by Ricardo Guilherme for the WG to request the GNSO Council to consider revising the draft WG Charter which will be voted on during the Council meeting on 15 November. The suggested revision is delineated below. > > Members are asked to state whether they would approve or object to this proposal being submitted to the Council on behalf of this PDP WG. > > The Council meets at 11:00 UTC on the 15 Nov. and so, WG members are requested to submit their approval/objection no later than 8:00 UTC on 15 Nov. > > If approved to be submitted on behalf of the WG, then the Chair could submit/present to the Council for its consideration in voting on adopting the draft WG Charter. > > Thank you. > > Brian Peck > Policy Director > ICANN > > > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: GUILHERME ricardo > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800 > To: Brian Peck > Subject: Proposed language edit for the WG charter > > Dear Brian, > > As discussed during the call, please find below the proposed remarks and edits to the WG Charter (Section "Mission and scope", third paragraph, first and second indents), to be shared with and potentially submitted by the WG before the GNSO Council call takes place tomorrow. > > An inconsistency exists between the language used in the first indent and the one contained in the second indent, in the sense that there is already an assumption that protection shall be afforded to the two movements/organizations named therein. Moreover, a reference to the initial round of new gTLDs is already provided in the second indent. > > THE CURRENT DRAFT WG CHARTER READS: > > Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to: > > - Determine the appropriate protection for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gLTDs. > > - Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these names. > > In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that the WG is supposed to provide, on a comprehensive and objective basis, recommendations concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (including as the case may be the IOC and the RC for the latter category). > > Consequently, in case the final recommendation is to refuse permanent protection to one entity or another, there is no legal or logical reason to further "develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for these names". I may also add that both the IOC and the RC fall within the scope of INGOs. > > In the light of the above, the first indent should be deleted (as it is redundant/duplicating language already present in the second indent) and the second indent read as follows instead: > > "Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of the new gTLDs are appropriate and should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs." > > With kind regards, > > Ricardo Guilherme > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robin Mon Nov 19 00:42:05 2012 From: Robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:42:05 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] my take on the TMCH mtg in LA Message-ID: <6B28DCB1-B46F-423C-8FA7-3FDBFB788484@IPJUSTICE.ORG> Below is my report of the LA meeting and my recommendations for how the community should approach the issues moving forward. Thanks much! Robin The 11th Hour Domain Name Trademark Policy Negotiations The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ? Dissecting the Strawman By Robin Gross ICANN organized a meeting on 15-16 November 2012 in Los Angeles, the Trademark Clearinghouse policy negotiations, to consider the 8-points sent by the IPC-BC to the ICANN board and senior staff in a letter of 16 October 2012. I participated in the policy meeting in person in LA on 15 November, and then for part of the discussion on 16 November via telephone. Kathy Kleiman also participated in the discussion via telephone from DC for NCSG on the 15th and the latter part of the 16th. Below is my personal evaluation of the meeting and my initial reactions to the output of the meeting pending further discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee. The Good: Dangerous Blocking Proposal was Defeated The good news is that the most dangerous proposal was defeated. The IPC-BC?s proposal to block Internet domain name registrations based on trademarks was unequivocally rejected by the meeting participants. Given its absence of any support outside the IPC-BC proponents, the participants did not include the blocking mechanism as a possible policy at this time. A wide range of participants objected to the registration blocking proposal for a variety of reasons. Kathy raised strong procedural concerns about introducing blocking after so much of ICANN?s time, attention and energy had already been spent on a fervent debate on the topic. She then raised the deep substantive concerns of allowing a trademark owner to reserve the right to block its trademark across all 1000+ new gTLDs, regardless of their applicability to the trademark?s registered categories of goods and services. It?s a point that NCSG has been made many times, and one first developed by Kathy and Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis in 2008 in response to the GPML (Globally Protection Marks List). Other members of the community also rejected the blocking policy proposal. Registries raised concerns about the blocking policy?s presumption of guilt on the part of Internet users in contradiction to well-settled due process protections. Registrars flagged the proposal?s danger to the health and growth of the Internet and reminded participants of the community?s responsibility to develop policies that do not cripple the Internet. At-Large representatives also argued that the blocking proposal was an inappropriate policy change that should not be given immediate consideration. So the good news is that the dangerous domain name registration blocking proposal was stopped (for now). The Bad: A Strawman Based on a Stacked Deck The bad news is we seem to have policy proposals to address, ICANN?s ?strawman model? with possible new and additional concessions to be made to the IPC-BC at this late date. ICANN staff?s output of this meeting, the strawman, should not be understood as something that participants agreed to, but is rather a discussion item for possible consideration based on executive decisions. Some parts of the strawman are indeed technical implementation details or other non-changes to GNSO-approved policy, and NCSG has no problem with those parts. But other parts of the strawman do propose substantive changes to existing policy and should not be accepted by the community and allowed to over-ride the legitimate policy development process. The strawman was discussed at the meeting many hours after the time that had been announced for policy discussions, and thus it was developed after many participants had already left the meeting (including me) to catch our flights back home on the 15th. The imbalance of impacted-interests providing input into the strawman proposals (12 CSG representatives to 1 NCSG representative on the phone in the middle of night) must be taken into consideration in its evaluation. A straw poll based on imbalanced inputs will obviously create imbalanced outputs. Additionally, the strawman proposals could apply just as equally to .com as they would to the new domain names, so its impact could be of far greater significance than is generally understood at first blush. The Ugly: ICANN is Developing Policy Outside of Proper GNSO Process The most troubling concern is that the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies keep coming again and again to renegotiate the same policies. Its further upsetting that ICANN then feels pressured to develop policy proposals in this inappropriate manner. We have to learn to respect the proper policy development process and the resulting policy compromises and consensus positions reached by the entire community. Even ICANN staff said in L.A. that each of IPC- BC proposals being considered was a policy change for which some form of policy development process was appropriate. Yet somehow the proposals were still in play for negotiation and ultimately executive decision -- and ICANN staff did produce a new set of possible changes to the policy as currently stated in the Guidebook, the ?strawman model?. Private negotiations among an imbalanced ad-hoc group to re- open well-settled policy matters is not the way to create legitimate policy, but it is developing policy. And even though it could have been much worse ? the blocking proposal could have been accepted ? the fact that ICANN has not learned it cannot make ad hoc policy changes outside of proper process is deeply troubling. We have the same obligations to accountability to the community, transparency of process, and equality of participation among impacted stakeholders in the development of policy at intercessional meetings that we have at other policy development meetings. Neither executive decisions nor private negotiations among select parties fulfill ICANN?s commitment to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process. What Now? Only Accept Strawman?s Technical Implementation Details It is now up to the ICANN community to put this matter to bed and disregard those parts of the strawman model that re-open previously settled policy matters or attempt to create new policies, while accepting those outcomes that stayed true to the commitment that the meeting not create policy, and are genuinely only technical implementation details. Expanding the scope of the trademark claims service to exact matches plus 50 variations of a trademark is a significant policy shift and expansion of trademark holders rights, which would require a legitimate policy development process to create. Other big policy concessions to the IPC-BC in the strawman include the creation of a new ?Claims 2? policy, and policies to extend and increase the legal liability of domain name registrants against trademark claims. The creation of entirely new policies that impact the rights and increase the risk for domain name registrants require a policy development process. However, insubstantial increases in the duration of Trademark Claims or adding a reasonable notice period to the Sunrise process are not terribly problematic and would not require a PDP to implement. Since the stawman is not the outcome of an agreed consensus that permitted equal participation from all impacted stakeholders, the strawman proposals cannot be said to over-ride the output of legitimate policy development and should only be considered for implementation where the model settles technical details and not policy matters. Dissection of the strawman proposals are necessary to sort-out true implementation from true policy. Specific Strawman Model Discussion Points & NCSG Initial Responses: Point 1. All new gTLD operators will publish the dates and requirements of their sunrise periods at least 30 days in advance. When combined with the existing (30-day) sunrise period, this supports the goal of enabling rights holders to anticipate and prepare for upcoming launches. NCSG Response: No Problem. Reasonable technical implementation detail to publish sunrise periods in advance. Point 2. A Trademark Claims period, as described in the Applicant Guidebook, will take place for 90 days. During this ?Claims 1? period, a person attempting to register a domain name matching a Clearinghouse record will be displayed a Claims notice (as included in the Applicant Guidebook) showing the relevant mark information, and must acknowledge the notice to proceed. If the domain name is registered, the relevant rightsholders will receive notice of the registration. NCSG Response: Some problem and some reasonable technical implementation detail. The duration of the claims period is a change from what is stated in the Guidebook, which provides only 60 days, but increasing to 90 days does not seem to be a significant substantive change. However, requiring registrant to acknowledge receipt of notice creates legal liability for domain name registrants, so that part is a problematic policy change. Point 3. Rights holders will have the option to pay an additional fee for inclusion of a Clearinghouse record in a ?Claims 2? service where, for an additional 6-12 months, anyone attempting to register a domain name matching the record would be shown a Claims notice indicating that the name matches a record in the Clearinghouse (but not necessarily displaying the actual Claims data). This notice will also provide a description of the rights and responsibilities of the registrant and will incorporate a form of educational add-on to help propagate information on the role of trademarks and develop more informed consumers in the registration process. NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this entirely new policy created outside of the appropriate GNSO policy process. Substantively, NCSG objects to this policy because it creates greater legal liability for Internet users who will be deemed to have received ?notice of infringement? for legal purposes upon sending of such additional notice. Rights and responsibilities are not uniform globally and may cause confusion or misinformation, so any ?educational? value of additional notice does not match the significance of increased legal liability for registrants of turning innocent infringers into knowingly and willful infringers. The imposition of criminal sanctions, additional monetary damages and other serious legal penalties are triggered for registrants who are sent such a notice and thus courts will deem them as having ?knowledge? of their infringement. These non-trivial considerations must be worked through as part of a proper policy development process by the entire community. Creating an entirely new ?Claims 2? policy is a significant policy change that should go through a proper policy development process within the GNSO. Point 4. Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights holder. NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this major policy change as it disregards the role of the GNSO as the policy development instrument at ICANN. Substantively this policy change significantly expands trademark holders rights beyond what trademark law permits and beyond what is in the Guidebook. The policy expands trademark holders rights at the expense of other legitimate interests, including all noncommercial speech. Just because one party infringes a trademark does not mean that all subsequent uses of that word by other parties and in entirely different contexts are presumed infringements, but this misguided policy does. Creating a special list of trademarks, for which a single default would be sufficient for inclusion on it, is obviously a policy proposal requiring legitimate process to ensure all interests are considered. The proposal is also a significant policy change because it expands the scope of trademark claims from exact matches of a trademark to up to 50 variations. That?s a big change to existing policy. Criticism of brands and companies as will other types of noncommercial lawful uses of words in domain names would be chilled by this policy proposal. Point 5. Possible blocking mechanisms were discussed, but were not included in the strawman model. NCSG Response: Agree with other participants that blocking of domain name registration based on trademarks as proposed by IPC-BC is dangerous to the health and growth of the Internet. NCSG, Registrars, Registries and At-Large rejected the blocking mechanism from consideration in the strawman proposal after hours of relentless debate. Obviously the creation of an entirely new blocking mechanism for domain names is a major policy change, inappropriate as an outcome of an informal and imbalanced meeting such as this, and was roundly rejected as such. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Tue Nov 20 23:15:06 2012 From: joy (joy) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:15:06 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] my take on the TMCH mtg in LA In-Reply-To: <6B28DCB1-B46F-423C-8FA7-3FDBFB788484@IPJUSTICE.ORG> References: <6B28DCB1-B46F-423C-8FA7-3FDBFB788484@IPJUSTICE.ORG> Message-ID: <50ABF2DA.2030606@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks Robin - an excellent summary and suggestions. And thanks to Kathy as well for putting up such a good fight on this. Robin - is it ok to share this with others eg colleagues in ccNSO? Cheers Joy On 19/11/2012 11:42 a.m., Robin Gross wrote: > Below is my report of the LA meeting and my recommendations for how > the community should approach the issues moving forward. > > Thanks much! Robin > > > *The 11^th Hour Domain Name Trademark Policy Negotiations * *The > Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ? Dissecting the Strawman* By Robin > Gross > > ICANN organized a meeting on 15-16 November 2012 in Los Angeles, > the Trademark Clearinghouse policy negotiations, to consider the > 8-points sent by the IPC-BC to the ICANN board and senior staff in > a letter of 16 October 2012. I participated in the policy meeting > in person in LA on 15 November, and then for part of the discussion > on 16 November via telephone. Kathy Kleiman also participated in > the discussion via telephone from DC for NCSG on the 15^th and the > latter part of the 16th. Below is my personal evaluation of the > meeting and my initial reactions to the output of the meeting > pending further discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee. > > *The Good: Dangerous Blocking Proposal was Defeated* > > The good news is that the most dangerous proposal was defeated. > The IPC-BC?s proposal to block Internet domain name registrations > based on trademarks was unequivocally rejected by the meeting > participants. Given its absence of any support outside the IPC-BC > proponents, the participants did not include the blocking mechanism > as a possible policy at this time. > > A wide range of participants objected to the registration blocking > proposal for a variety of reasons. Kathy raised strong procedural > concerns about introducing blocking after so much of ICANN?s time, > attention and energy had already been spent on a fervent debate on > the topic. She then raised the deep substantive concerns of > allowing a trademark owner to reserve the right to block its > trademark across all 1000+ new gTLDs, regardless of their > applicability to the trademark?s registered categories of goods and > services. It?s a point that NCSG has been made many times, and one > first developed by Kathy and Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis in 2008 in > response to the GPML (Globally Protection Marks List). > > Other members of the community also rejected the blocking policy > proposal. Registries raised concerns about the blocking policy?s > presumption of guilt on the part of Internet users in contradiction > to well-settled due process protections. Registrars flagged the > proposal?s danger to the health and growth of the Internet and > reminded participants of the community?s responsibility to develop > policies that do not cripple the Internet. At-Large > representatives also argued that the blocking proposal was an > inappropriate policy change that should not be given immediate > consideration. So the good news is that the dangerous domain name > registration blocking proposal was stopped (for now). > > *The Bad: A Strawman Based on a Stacked Deck* > > The bad news is we seem to have policy proposals to address, > ICANN?s ?strawman model? with possible new and additional > concessions to be made to the IPC-BC at this late date. ICANN > staff?s output of this meeting, the strawman, should not be > understood as something that participants agreed to, but is rather > a discussion item for possible consideration based on executive > decisions. Some parts of the strawman are indeed technical > implementation details or other non-changes to GNSO-approved > policy, and NCSG has no problem with those parts. But other parts > of the strawman do propose substantive changes to existing policy > and should not be accepted by the community and allowed to > over-ride the legitimate policy development process. > > The strawman was discussed at the meeting many hours after the time > that had been announced for policy discussions, and thus it was > developed after many participants had already left the meeting > (including me) to catch our flights back home on the 15th. The > imbalance of impacted-interests providing input into the strawman > proposals (12 CSG representatives to 1 NCSG representative on the > phone in the middle of night) must be taken into consideration in > its evaluation. A straw poll based on imbalanced inputs will > obviously create imbalanced outputs. > > Additionally, the strawman proposals could apply just as equally to > .com as they would to the new domain names, so its impact could be > of far greater significance than is generally understood at first > blush. > > *The Ugly: ICANN is Developing Policy Outside of Proper GNSO > Process* > > The most troubling concern is that the Intellectual Property and > Business Constituencies keep coming again and again to renegotiate > the same policies. Its further upsetting that ICANN then feels > pressured to develop policy proposals in this inappropriate manner. > We have to learn to respect the proper policy development process > and the resulting policy compromises and consensus positions > reached by the entire community. Even ICANN staff said in L.A. > that each of IPC-BC proposals being considered was a policy change > for which some form of policy development process was appropriate. > Yet somehow the proposals were still in play for negotiation and > ultimately executive decision -- and ICANN staff did produce a new > set of possible changes to the policy as currently stated in the > Guidebook, the ?strawman model?. Private negotiations among an > imbalanced ad-hoc group to re-open well-settled policy matters is > not the way to create legitimate policy, but it is developing > policy. And even though it could have been much worse ? the > blocking proposal could have been accepted ? the fact that ICANN > has not learned it cannot make ad hoc policy changes outside of > proper process is deeply troubling. > > We have the same obligations to accountability to the community, > transparency of process, and equality of participation among > impacted stakeholders in the development of policy at > intercessional meetings that we have at other policy development > meetings. Neither executive decisions nor private negotiations > among select parties fulfill ICANN?s commitment to the bottom-up > multi-stakeholder policy development process. > > *What Now? Only Accept Strawman?s Technical Implementation > Details* * * It is now up to the ICANN community to put this matter > to bed and disregard those parts of the strawman model that re-open > previously settled policy matters or attempt to create new > policies, while accepting those outcomes that stayed true to the > commitment that the meeting not create policy, and are genuinely > only technical implementation details. > > Expanding the scope of the trademark claims service to exact > matches plus 50 variations of a trademark is a significant policy > shift and expansion of trademark holders rights, which would > require a legitimate policy development process to create. Other > big policy concessions to the IPC-BC in the strawman include the > creation of a new ?Claims 2? policy, and policies to extend and > increase the legal liability of domain name registrants against > trademark claims. The creation of entirely new policies that > impact the rights and increase the risk for domain name registrants > require a policy development process. However, insubstantial > increases in the duration of Trademark Claims or adding a > reasonable notice period to the Sunrise process are not terribly > problematic and would not require a PDP to implement. > > Since the stawman is not the outcome of an agreed consensus that > permitted equal participation from all impacted stakeholders, the > strawman proposals cannot be said to over-ride the output of > legitimate policy development and should only be considered for > implementation where the model settles technical details and not > policy matters. Dissection of the strawman proposals are necessary > to sort-out true implementation from true policy. > > > *_Specific Strawman Model Discussion Points & NCSG Initial > Responses:_* > > Point 1. All new gTLD operators will publish the dates and > requirements of their sunrise periods at least 30 days in advance. > When combined with the existing (30-day) sunrise period, this > supports the goal of enabling rights holders to anticipate and > prepare for upcoming launches. > > NCSG Response: No Problem. Reasonable technical implementation > detail to publish sunrise periods in advance. > > Point 2. A Trademark Claims period, as described in the Applicant > Guidebook, will take place for 90 days. During this ?Claims 1? > period, a person attempting to register a domain name matching a > Clearinghouse record will be displayed a Claims notice (as included > in the Applicant Guidebook) showing the relevant mark information, > and must acknowledge the notice to proceed. If the domain name is > registered, the relevant rightsholders will receive notice of the > registration. > > NCSG Response: Some problem and some reasonable technical > implementation detail. The duration of the claims period is a > change from what is stated in the Guidebook, which provides only 60 > days, but increasing to 90 days does not seem to be a significant > substantive change. However, requiring registrant to acknowledge > receipt of notice creates legal liability for domain name > registrants, so that part is a problematic policy change. > > Point 3. Rights holders will have the option to pay an additional > fee for inclusion of a Clearinghouse record in a ?Claims 2? service > where, for an additional 6-12 months, anyone attempting to register > a domain name matching the record would be shown a Claims notice > indicating that the name matches a record in the Clearinghouse (but > not necessarily displaying the actual Claims data). This notice > will also provide a description of the rights and responsibilities > of the registrant and will incorporate a form of educational add-on > to help propagate information on the role of trademarks and develop > more informed consumers in the registration process. > > NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this entirely new policy created > outside of the appropriate GNSO policy process. Substantively, > NCSG objects to this policy because it creates greater legal > liability for Internet users who will be deemed to have received > ?notice of infringement? for legal purposes upon sending of such > additional notice. Rights and responsibilities are not uniform > globally and may cause confusion or misinformation, so any > ?educational? value of additional notice does not match the > significance of increased legal liability for registrants of > turning innocent infringers into knowingly and willful infringers. > The imposition of criminal sanctions, additional monetary damages > and other serious legal penalties are triggered for registrants who > are sent such a notice and thus courts will deem them as having > ?knowledge? of their infringement. These non-trivial > considerations must be worked through as part of a proper policy > development process by the entire community. Creating an entirely > new ?Claims 2? policy is a significant policy change that should go > through a proper policy development process within the GNSO. > > > Point 4. Where there are domain labels that have been found to be > the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of > a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these > may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be > mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already > been verified by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as > domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the > notices to the rights holder. > > NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this major policy change as it > disregards the role of the GNSO as the policy development > instrument at ICANN. Substantively this policy change > significantly expands trademark holders rights beyond what > trademark law permits and beyond what is in the Guidebook. The > policy expands trademark holders rights at the expense of other > legitimate interests, including all noncommercial speech. Just > because one party infringes a trademark does not mean that all > subsequent uses of that word by other parties and in entirely > different contexts are presumed infringements, but this misguided > policy does. Creating a special list of trademarks, for which a > single default would be sufficient for inclusion on it, is > obviously a policy proposal requiring legitimate process to ensure > all interests are considered. The proposal is also a significant > policy change because it expands the scope of trademark claims from > exact matches of a trademark to up to 50 variations. That?s a big > change to existing policy. Criticism of brands and companies as > will other types of noncommercial lawful uses of words in domain > names would be chilled by this policy proposal. > > Point 5. Possible blocking mechanisms were discussed, but were > not included in the strawman model. > > NCSG Response: Agree with other participants that blocking of > domain name registration based on trademarks as proposed by IPC-BC > is dangerous to the health and growth of the Internet. NCSG, > Registrars, Registries and At-Large rejected the blocking mechanism > from consideration in the strawman proposal after hours of > relentless debate. Obviously the creation of an entirely new > blocking mechanism for domain names is a major policy change, > inappropriate as an outcome of an informal and imbalanced meeting > such as this, and was roundly rejected as such. > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San > Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing > list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQq/LaAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6DkIAKZ4S8NtdSnkaUzdj7Jxpowp lgFKNIWDxO7QPk6QMFYMIMMni3vASM0Um/HTsmwehmGCqmlS1QGoXtWGzeAyV8HD cfJrBnTRJXmKtOKic+kXggjW/+0oAClupzyV9aQJ9ascf33BdHyJmwFX+Wpgbqvd +n0IOAQhfeQOVNdepkIZyCkCWMKYWjd06fx8aWFsiFQyceu/WNBsFreANDbm8f4x ZyQEhL13CytHccXCfYO/gqZSHK7dMgHJMzDcdaoJT2MFHV758di27Rq+iO4mAByI +9BeT1WT6IMyXhpISnyocFLhCZcsWif0DhiDzpns5YHwYwhYbok4UnlpA08npWs= =waqK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kleiman Wed Nov 21 00:04:42 2012 From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:04:42 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] my take on the TMCH mtg in LA In-Reply-To: <50ABF2DA.2030606@apc.org> References: <6B28DCB1-B46F-423C-8FA7-3FDBFB788484@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <50ABF2DA.2030606@apc.org> Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24F0802F@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Robin may have different views. My thought might be to wait until Monday before distributing to the ccNSO. Fadi has scheduled another (short) call with the same group. There may be some new information. Also, we may want to have a meeting before publishing our positions. My personal view is that I recommend we think carefully about how to respond to the issues -- the "variant issue" in particular. We can oppose it completely, in which case we may lose everything, or we can offer a constructive critique of how -- if is has to go forward -- it should be modified, narrowed, tweaked and reduced in both scope and numbers (50?!?!) But thanks to Robin for being in LA! It was a hard trip, I know, but because she was there, we could work together and we did - closely and throughout the entire day. I have to say that my 12 hours on the phone that day were very difficult - it was a hard meeting. All the best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of joy Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:15 PM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] my take on the TMCH mtg in LA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks Robin - an excellent summary and suggestions. And thanks to Kathy as well for putting up such a good fight on this. Robin - is it ok to share this with others eg colleagues in ccNSO? Cheers Joy On 19/11/2012 11:42 a.m., Robin Gross wrote: > Below is my report of the LA meeting and my recommendations for how > the community should approach the issues moving forward. > > Thanks much! Robin > > > *The 11^th Hour Domain Name Trademark Policy Negotiations * *The Good, > The Bad, and The Ugly ? Dissecting the Strawman* By Robin Gross > > ICANN organized a meeting on 15-16 November 2012 in Los Angeles, the > Trademark Clearinghouse policy negotiations, to consider the 8-points > sent by the IPC-BC to the ICANN board and senior staff in a letter of > 16 October 2012. I participated in the policy meeting in person in LA > on 15 November, and then for part of the discussion on 16 November via > telephone. Kathy Kleiman also participated in the discussion via > telephone from DC for NCSG on the 15^th and the latter part of the > 16th. Below is my personal evaluation of the meeting and my initial > reactions to the output of the meeting pending further discussion with > the NCSG Policy Committee. > > *The Good: Dangerous Blocking Proposal was Defeated* > > The good news is that the most dangerous proposal was defeated. > The IPC-BC?s proposal to block Internet domain name registrations > based on trademarks was unequivocally rejected by the meeting > participants. Given its absence of any support outside the IPC-BC > proponents, the participants did not include the blocking mechanism as > a possible policy at this time. > > A wide range of participants objected to the registration blocking > proposal for a variety of reasons. Kathy raised strong procedural > concerns about introducing blocking after so much of ICANN?s time, > attention and energy had already been spent on a fervent debate on the > topic. She then raised the deep substantive concerns of allowing a > trademark owner to reserve the right to block its trademark across all > 1000+ new gTLDs, regardless of their applicability to the trademark?s > registered categories of goods and services. It?s a point that NCSG > has been made many times, and one first developed by Kathy and Dr. > Konstantinos Komaitis in 2008 in response to the GPML (Globally > Protection Marks List). > > Other members of the community also rejected the blocking policy > proposal. Registries raised concerns about the blocking policy?s > presumption of guilt on the part of Internet users in contradiction to > well-settled due process protections. Registrars flagged the > proposal?s danger to the health and growth of the Internet and > reminded participants of the community?s responsibility to develop > policies that do not cripple the Internet. At-Large representatives > also argued that the blocking proposal was an inappropriate policy > change that should not be given immediate consideration. So the good > news is that the dangerous domain name registration blocking proposal > was stopped (for now). > > *The Bad: A Strawman Based on a Stacked Deck* > > The bad news is we seem to have policy proposals to address, ICANN?s > ?strawman model? with possible new and additional concessions to be > made to the IPC-BC at this late date. ICANN staff?s output of this > meeting, the strawman, should not be understood as something that > participants agreed to, but is rather a discussion item for possible > consideration based on executive decisions. Some parts of the > strawman are indeed technical implementation details or other > non-changes to GNSO-approved policy, and NCSG has no problem with > those parts. But other parts of the strawman do propose substantive > changes to existing policy and should not be accepted by the community > and allowed to over-ride the legitimate policy development process. > > The strawman was discussed at the meeting many hours after the time > that had been announced for policy discussions, and thus it was > developed after many participants had already left the meeting > (including me) to catch our flights back home on the 15th. The > imbalance of impacted-interests providing input into the strawman > proposals (12 CSG representatives to 1 NCSG representative on the > phone in the middle of night) must be taken into consideration in its > evaluation. A straw poll based on imbalanced inputs will obviously > create imbalanced outputs. > > Additionally, the strawman proposals could apply just as equally to > .com as they would to the new domain names, so its impact could be of > far greater significance than is generally understood at first blush. > > *The Ugly: ICANN is Developing Policy Outside of Proper GNSO > Process* > > The most troubling concern is that the Intellectual Property and > Business Constituencies keep coming again and again to renegotiate the > same policies. Its further upsetting that ICANN then feels pressured > to develop policy proposals in this inappropriate manner. > We have to learn to respect the proper policy development process and > the resulting policy compromises and consensus positions reached by > the entire community. Even ICANN staff said in L.A. > that each of IPC-BC proposals being considered was a policy change for > which some form of policy development process was appropriate. > Yet somehow the proposals were still in play for negotiation and > ultimately executive decision -- and ICANN staff did produce a new set > of possible changes to the policy as currently stated in the > Guidebook, the ?strawman model?. Private negotiations among an > imbalanced ad-hoc group to re-open well-settled policy matters is not > the way to create legitimate policy, but it is developing policy. And > even though it could have been much worse ? the blocking proposal > could have been accepted ? the fact that ICANN has not learned it > cannot make ad hoc policy changes outside of proper process is deeply > troubling. > > We have the same obligations to accountability to the community, > transparency of process, and equality of participation among impacted > stakeholders in the development of policy at intercessional meetings > that we have at other policy development meetings. Neither executive > decisions nor private negotiations among select parties fulfill > ICANN?s commitment to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy > development process. > > *What Now? Only Accept Strawman?s Technical Implementation > Details* * * It is now up to the ICANN community to put this matter to > bed and disregard those parts of the strawman model that re-open > previously settled policy matters or attempt to create new policies, > while accepting those outcomes that stayed true to the commitment that > the meeting not create policy, and are genuinely only technical > implementation details. > > Expanding the scope of the trademark claims service to exact matches > plus 50 variations of a trademark is a significant policy shift and > expansion of trademark holders rights, which would require a > legitimate policy development process to create. Other big policy > concessions to the IPC-BC in the strawman include the creation of a > new ?Claims 2? policy, and policies to extend and increase the legal > liability of domain name registrants against trademark claims. The > creation of entirely new policies that impact the rights and increase > the risk for domain name registrants require a policy development > process. However, insubstantial increases in the duration of > Trademark Claims or adding a reasonable notice period to the Sunrise > process are not terribly problematic and would not require a PDP to > implement. > > Since the stawman is not the outcome of an agreed consensus that > permitted equal participation from all impacted stakeholders, the > strawman proposals cannot be said to over-ride the output of > legitimate policy development and should only be considered for > implementation where the model settles technical details and not > policy matters. Dissection of the strawman proposals are necessary to > sort-out true implementation from true policy. > > > *_Specific Strawman Model Discussion Points & NCSG Initial > Responses:_* > > Point 1. All new gTLD operators will publish the dates and > requirements of their sunrise periods at least 30 days in advance. > When combined with the existing (30-day) sunrise period, this supports > the goal of enabling rights holders to anticipate and prepare for > upcoming launches. > > NCSG Response: No Problem. Reasonable technical implementation detail > to publish sunrise periods in advance. > > Point 2. A Trademark Claims period, as described in the Applicant > Guidebook, will take place for 90 days. During this ?Claims 1? > period, a person attempting to register a domain name matching a > Clearinghouse record will be displayed a Claims notice (as included in > the Applicant Guidebook) showing the relevant mark information, and > must acknowledge the notice to proceed. If the domain name is > registered, the relevant rightsholders will receive notice of the > registration. > > NCSG Response: Some problem and some reasonable technical > implementation detail. The duration of the claims period is a change > from what is stated in the Guidebook, which provides only 60 days, but > increasing to 90 days does not seem to be a significant substantive > change. However, requiring registrant to acknowledge receipt of > notice creates legal liability for domain name registrants, so that > part is a problematic policy change. > > Point 3. Rights holders will have the option to pay an additional fee > for inclusion of a Clearinghouse record in a ?Claims 2? service where, > for an additional 6-12 months, anyone attempting to register a domain > name matching the record would be shown a Claims notice indicating > that the name matches a record in the Clearinghouse (but not > necessarily displaying the actual Claims data). This notice will also > provide a description of the rights and responsibilities of the > registrant and will incorporate a form of educational add-on to help > propagate information on the role of trademarks and develop more > informed consumers in the registration process. > > NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this entirely new policy created > outside of the appropriate GNSO policy process. Substantively, NCSG > objects to this policy because it creates greater legal liability for > Internet users who will be deemed to have received ?notice of > infringement? for legal purposes upon sending of such additional > notice. Rights and responsibilities are not uniform globally and may > cause confusion or misinformation, so any ?educational? value of > additional notice does not match the significance of increased legal > liability for registrants of turning innocent infringers into > knowingly and willful infringers. > The imposition of criminal sanctions, additional monetary damages and > other serious legal penalties are triggered for registrants who are > sent such a notice and thus courts will deem them as having > ?knowledge? of their infringement. These non-trivial considerations > must be worked through as part of a proper policy development process > by the entire community. Creating an entirely new ?Claims 2? policy is > a significant policy change that should go through a proper policy > development process within the GNSO. > > > Point 4. Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the > subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP > or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be > added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to > an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified > by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as domain names will > generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights > holder. > > NCSG Response: NCSG objects to this major policy change as it > disregards the role of the GNSO as the policy development instrument > at ICANN. Substantively this policy change significantly expands > trademark holders rights beyond what trademark law permits and beyond > what is in the Guidebook. The policy expands trademark holders rights > at the expense of other legitimate interests, including all > noncommercial speech. Just because one party infringes a trademark > does not mean that all subsequent uses of that word by other parties > and in entirely different contexts are presumed infringements, but > this misguided policy does. Creating a special list of trademarks, > for which a single default would be sufficient for inclusion on it, is > obviously a policy proposal requiring legitimate process to ensure all > interests are considered. The proposal is also a significant policy > change because it expands the scope of trademark claims from exact > matches of a trademark to up to 50 variations. That?s a big change to > existing policy. Criticism of brands and companies as will other > types of noncommercial lawful uses of words in domain names would be > chilled by this policy proposal. > > Point 5. Possible blocking mechanisms were discussed, but were not > included in the strawman model. > > NCSG Response: Agree with other participants that blocking of domain > name registration based on trademarks as proposed by IPC-BC is > dangerous to the health and growth of the Internet. NCSG, Registrars, > Registries and At-Large rejected the blocking mechanism from > consideration in the strawman proposal after hours of relentless > debate. Obviously the creation of an entirely new blocking mechanism > for domain names is a major policy change, inappropriate as an outcome > of an informal and imbalanced meeting such as this, and was roundly > rejected as such. > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San > Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQq/LaAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6DkIAKZ4S8NtdSnkaUzdj7Jxpowp lgFKNIWDxO7QPk6QMFYMIMMni3vASM0Um/HTsmwehmGCqmlS1QGoXtWGzeAyV8HD cfJrBnTRJXmKtOKic+kXggjW/+0oAClupzyV9aQJ9ascf33BdHyJmwFX+Wpgbqvd +n0IOAQhfeQOVNdepkIZyCkCWMKYWjd06fx8aWFsiFQyceu/WNBsFreANDbm8f4x ZyQEhL13CytHccXCfYO/gqZSHK7dMgHJMzDcdaoJT2MFHV758di27Rq+iO4mAByI +9BeT1WT6IMyXhpISnyocFLhCZcsWif0DhiDzpns5YHwYwhYbok4UnlpA08npWs= =waqK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Mon Nov 26 23:00:19 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:00:19 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Monday Informational Call References: <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C8205B5954C02@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com> Message-ID: Finally, attached is the IPC-BC's latest proposal that it wants ICANN to adopt to block domain name registrations based on trademarks. So far, Fadi is not willing to consider blocking as within his strawman proposal since no other sectors of the community accept it, however, he will attach it to his strawman and invite the community to comment on it as well. So it is not completely dead yet. We have to continue to oppose it in public comments and at council, where the strawman will be debated next. Staff acknowledged that the strawman proposal of TM+50 was deemed policy and that blocking was policy so that is good. And staff has determined that the additional 30 day notice to sunrise is implementation as is extending claims from 60-90 days. Those are not a problem for me. The only issue may be with staff's assessment that the creation of the claims period and the additional soft notice was implementation, not policy. That sure seems like creating a policy out of whole cloth to me. But at least staff is signaling it will move in the right direction on blocking and TM+50. Now to withstand another lobby campaign with the public comments and at council. Frankly, I'm glad Fadi is punting this to council to comment on (what is policy and what is implementation). IPC-BC cannot force council, but it can organize a big letter writing campaign for public comments. Best, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: "Rosette, Kristina" > Date: November 26, 2012 12:44:37 PM PST > To: Fadi Chehade , Antony Van Couvering > , Alan Greenberg > , Ben Anderson > , Bryce Coughlin > , Bret Fausett , Chris > Wright , Elisa Cooper > , Evan Leibovitch , > Fabricio Vayra , Fred Felman > , Gerald Depardo > , Gustavo Lozano > , "jscottevans at yahoo.com" > , James Bladel , Jeff > Eckhaus , "Neuman, Jeff" > , "Waldron, Joe" , > Joris Goiris , Jon Nevett , > Jonathan Robinson , Kathryn Kleiman > , Kathy Kleiman , > Kathryn Barrett Park , Konstantinos Komaitis > , Marilyn Cade , > Martin Sutton , Matt Serlin > , Mike O'Connor , > Robin Gross , "Deutsch, Sarah B" > , Susan Kawaguchi , > Steven Metalitz , Steve DelBianco > , Tony Holmes > , Vicky Folens , > Anthony Harris , Wendy Seltzer > , Wim Fabri , John Hudson > , Elaine Pruis , > James Gould > Cc: Karen Lentz , Francisco Arias > , Akram Atallah > , Christine Willett > , Margie Milam > , John Jeffrey , > David Olive > Subject: RE: Monday Informational Call > > All, > > > > With apologies for the delay, attached please find the LPR summary > that was discussed this morning. > > Sincerely yours, > Kristina > > Kristina Rosette > Covington & Burling LLP > 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20004-2401 > voice: 202-662-5173 > direct fax: 202-778-5173 > main fax: 202-662-6291 > e-mail: krosette at cov.com > www.cov.com/krosette > > This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail > that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and > delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:42 AM > To: Antony Van Couvering; Alan Greenberg; Ben Anderson; Bryce > Coughlin; Bret Fausett; Chris Wright; Elisa Cooper; Evan > Leibovitch; Fabricio Vayra; Fred Felman; Gerald Depardo; Gustavo > Lozano; jscottevans at yahoo.com; James Bladel; Jeff Eckhaus; Neuman, > Jeff; Waldron, Joe; Joris Goiris; Jon Nevett; Jonathan Robinson; > Kathryn Kleiman; Kathy Kleiman; Kathryn Barrett Park; Konstantinos > Komaitis; Rosette, Kristina; Marilyn Cade; Martin Sutton; Matt > Serlin; Mike O'Connor; Robin Gross; Deutsch, Sarah B; Susan > Kawaguchi; Steven Metalitz; Steve DelBianco; Tony Holmes; Vicky > Folens; Anthony Harris; Wendy Seltzer; Wim Fabri; John Hudson; > Elaine Pruis; James Gould > Cc: Karen Lentz; Francisco Arias; Akram Atallah; Christine Willett; > Margie Milam; John Jeffrey; David Olive > Subject: Monday Informational Call > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > As promised when we met in LA, I sent you an invitation to an > informational call next Monday at 8am pacific time. > > > > The call will address two items: > > ? a review of the terms we have now reached with the > trademark validation provider > > ? An update on our internal analysis on how to proceed with > the straw-man proposal. > > I look forward to meeting with all of you again. In the meantime, > to those of you in the US, my best wishes for a very happy > Thanksgiving! > > > > Warm Regards, > > Fadi > ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 11262012 LPR summary.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 26717 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Nov 29 05:23:45 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:23:45 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Community frustrated by staff's continued rogue policymaking to benefit IPC-BC at expense of other legitimate interests Message-ID: I must say: I do concur with what Volker Greimann has to say on the GNSO Council list regarding ICANN's strawman proposals for additional RPM's: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13886.html Jon Nevitt also wrote a powerful critique of staff's strawman today, which was sent to the working group and will soon be published in Circle ID. I'm additionally concerned that staff has conceded further to the IPC- BC demands than what was presented on Monday's call on the issue of the expanding the scope of claims to so-called abused TM+50. That is creating a huge new policy with significant impacts to lots of stakeholders out of whole cloth. During Monday's call, Fadi said that he and staff had deemed that particular proposal to be policy, and thus not part of the strawman, since staff can't create policy. But then in yesterday's blog report on the meeting, the expansion of the scope of TM claims is quietly relabeled implementation, meaning it can go into staff's strawman proposal for new RPM's. So it seems there were even further concessions made to IPC-BC following Monday's call. My own straw-poll of the community members on Monday's call confirmed my understanding of Monday's staff presentation of the proposal to expand claims as policy, so this further concession / change concerns me deeply. (It is also explicitly contrary to what ICANN told NTIA on the issue a few weeks ago). NCSG is not alone in being frustrated by this extra-judicial policymaking by ICANN staff in the guise of implementation. I don't think the community is going to accept staff's proposal and it will backfire on staff because they are trying to create new policy at the last minute to benefit the IPC-BC at the expense of all the other stakeholders, and will be called on it. Staff is setting a terrible precedent for future policy work - but it is also meeting significant resistance from the community, so won't be easily swallowed. The honeymoon is over and ICANN's new CEO is already skating on thin ice with many sectors of the ICANN community by the gross mis-handling of this issue. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: