From rafik.dammak  Mon Apr  1 03:46:56 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:46:56 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <51586667.2050604@seltzer.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnjyHTkCC5U2NbysF+oU9umP69qTUmUQPSgVs40kpTdEw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Wendy for summarizing those points,
regarding nomcom, it will be good to provide guidance about appointing the
NCA into houses. and also giving feedback about work within noncom to
improve transparency.
for bottom-up vs top-down policy , are they included as topic in
board-council meeting too?

what is the purpose of long-term planning committee?

Rafik


2013/4/1 Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>

> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also request
> items for discussion even if we don't have motions on the table. We
> might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion on the privacy/proxy
> "accreditation," or might better wait for more conversations (not sure).
>
> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters of
> bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council can take a
> leadership role in bringing issues up from the bottom.
>
> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the current RAA
> to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy
> changes in any proposed new RAA?
>
> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
>
> Propose a long-term planning committee?
>
> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do with
> their appointees to GNSO Council?
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> > Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO Representatives to
> > actively advance the policy positions of the membership on the GNSO
> > Council.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the weighty
> >>> issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't some of them be
> >>> on the council's agenda for discussion at least?
> >>>
> >>> Robin
> >>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> >>>> Date: March 31, 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT
> >>>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
> >>>> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear All,
> >>>> Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting
> >>>> in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time).
> >>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
> >>>> The agenda is also published on the Wiki at:
> >>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
> >>>>
> >>>> Motions may be viewed at:
> >>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >>>>
> >>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
> >>>>
> >>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> >>>> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and
> updated.
> >>>> http://
> >>>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
> >>>> For convenience:
> >>>>     ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds
> >>>> is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> >>>>     ? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
> >>>> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of
> >>>> this agenda.
> >>>> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
> >>>> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC
> >>>> 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris;
> >>>> 19:15 Wellington
> >>>>
> >>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.
> >>>> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial
> >>>> out call is needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
> >>>>
> >>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60
> >>>> minutes)
> >>>>
> >>>>     ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek
> >>>>     ? Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin
> >>>>     ? Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake
> >>>>     ? Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
> >>>>     ? Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain
> >>>> Berranger.
> >>>>     ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper
> >>>>     ? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?  Kristina Rosette
> >>>>     ? Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP)
> >>>> ? Tony Holmes
> >>>> Break (10 minutes)
> >>>> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> >>>> 1.1 Roll Call
> >>>> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> >>>> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> >>>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per
> >>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures:
> >>>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 approved on
> >>>> 30 March 2013.
> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
> >>>> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf
> >>>>     ? Review main changes.
> >>>>     ? Comments and/or questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes)
> >>>> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> >>>> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
> >>>> TBC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on
> >>>> the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10
> minutes)
> >>>> A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact
> >>>> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> >>>> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should
> >>>> initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues
> >>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until
> >>>> the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services completes its
> >>>> recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible extension, in order to
> >>>> ensure that the resulting policy recommendations would be consistent
> >>>> with any new model or approaches to contact data that may result
> >>>> from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
> >>>>
> >>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue
> >>>> Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the
> >>>> commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for
> >>>> internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the
> >>>> PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
> >>>>
> >>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly
> >>>> within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of
> >>>> the GNSO.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link to motion
> >>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
> >>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> >>>> 4.3 Vote.
> >>>> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
> >>>> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the
> >>>> boundary between policy development and implementation work as well
> >>>> as the effective integration of policy development and integration
> >>>> work from the outset.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues
> >>>> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of
> >>>> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
> >>>>
> >>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate further
> >>>> community discussions on this topic. Discussions on the Council
> >>>> mailing list and at subsequent meetings indicate that this is an
> >>>> area of fundamental interest to the Council.
> >>>>
> >>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the Council is to
> >>>> discuss the current position and to consider next steps from a GNSO
> >>>> Council perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5.1 Discussion
> >>>> 5.2 Next steps
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues Report
> >>>> (10 minutes)
> >>>>
> >>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting that GNSO
> >>>> Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam earlier this
> >>>> year, was to develop an online template to complete the request for
> >>>> an Issue Report.
> >>>>
> >>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather as
> >>>> much information as possible and engage in early discussions with
> >>>> others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report. The
> >>>> intended outcome is that by encouraging completion of all the
> >>>> information requested in the template, it will be possible to
> >>>> identify what information may still be needed and encourage
> >>>> collaboration between different interested parties at an early stage.
> >>>>
> >>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be completed
> >>>> by either by following the instructions or by downloading the word
> >>>> template from the same page. Once completed, Council members will be
> >>>> able to either create a PDF and submit that together with a motion
> >>>> to the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the
> >>>> motion. Please note that this template is tailored to requests for
> >>>> Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual.
> >>>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to discuss
> >>>> its usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue reports and
> >>>> consider also where similar templates could be used elsewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6.1 ? Discussion
> >>>> 6.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in Beijing (15
> >>>> minutes)
> >>>> A series of main session meetings will have taken place as well as
> >>>> meetings between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This item
> >>>> represents an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or
> >>>> actions arising from those meetings.
> >>>>
> >>>> 7.1 ? Discussion
> >>>> 7.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> >>>>
> >>>> Open Microphone
> >>>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
> >>>> Section 3)
> >>>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or
> >>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO
> >>>> Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority
> >>>> vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall
> >>>> apply to the following GNSO actions:
> >>>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more
> >>>> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> >>>> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
> >>>> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than
> >>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one
> >>>> House.
> >>>> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of
> >>>> GNSO Supermajority.
> >>>> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
> >>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more
> >>>> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> >>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires
> >>>> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> >>>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> >>>> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an
> >>>> amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> >>>> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of
> >>>> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
> >>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO
> >>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> >>>> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
> >>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further
> >>>> requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3
> >>>> of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> >>>> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires
> >>>> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> >>>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> >>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies
> >>>> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of
> >>>> a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be
> >>>> met or exceeded.
> >>>> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final
> >>>> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be
> >>>> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority
> vote.
> >>>> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> >>>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one
> >>>> House and a majority of the other House."
> >>>> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> >>>> 4.4.1 Applicability
> >>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of
> >>>> Council motions or measures.
> >>>> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> >>>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> >>>> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
> >>>> ICANN Bylaws;
> >>>> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> >>>> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> >>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
> >>>> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of
> >>>> the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the
> >>>> time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally
> >>>> confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> >>>> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
> >>>> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide
> >>>> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee
> >>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based
> >>>> interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> >>>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
> >>>> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> >>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN
> hemisphere
> >>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
> >>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
> >>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15
> >>>> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
> >>>> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
> >>>> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
> >>>> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
> >>>> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
> >>>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
> >>>> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
> >>>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15
> >>>> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
> >>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
> >>>> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
> >>>> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
> >>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
> >>>> local time (with exceptions)
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> Glen
> >>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >>>> GNSO Secretariat
> >>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> >>>> http://gnso.icann.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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130401/ad3734b8/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Mon Apr  1 04:02:04 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:02:04 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <51586667.2050604@seltzer.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Wendy - some comments below.
Joy

On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also
> request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on the
> table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion on
> the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better wait for more
> conversations (not sure).
> 
> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters
> of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council can
> take a leadership role in bringing issues up from the bottom.
JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly undermining
the Council - why will noone talk about this?
I think we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that
policy should stand once it is set until it is re-set through proper
process. happy to support this.
> 
> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the current
> RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the
> policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it, let
them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
> 
> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
> 
> Propose a long-term planning committee?
> 
> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do
> with their appointees to GNSO Council?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO Representatives
>> to actively advance the policy positions of the membership on the
>> GNSO Council.
>> 
>> Thanks, Robin
>> 
>> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the
>>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't
>>>> some of them be on the council's agenda for discussion at
>>>> least?
>>>> 
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> Date: March 31,
>>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c
>>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
>>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10
>>>>> April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO
>>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15
>>>>> UTC (15:15 Local time). 
>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is also
>>>>> published on the Wiki at: 
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
Motions may be viewed at:
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>>> 
>>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council
>>>>> Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the
>>>>> GNSO Council and updated. http:// 
>>>>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> 
For convenience:
>>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting
>>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this
>>>>> agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures
>>>>> defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in
>>>>> Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 07:15
>>>>> UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns Coordinated Universal Time
>>>>> 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15
>>>>> London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council
>>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in
>>>>> advance if a dial out call is needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>>> 
>>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency
>>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
>>>>> 
>>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ? Registrars
>>>>> Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non Commercial Users
>>>>> Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ? Non Commercial
>>>>> Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross ? Not-for-Profit
>>>>> Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain Berranger. ?
>>>>> Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa
>>>>> Cooper ? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?
>>>>> Kristina Rosette ? Internet Service Providers and
>>>>> Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break (10
>>>>> minutes) Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1
>>>>> Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3
>>>>> Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the
>>>>> previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating
>>>>> Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14
>>>>> March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013. 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 
1.5. GNSO Projects List
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ? Review
>>>>> main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review
>>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
>>>>> topics Include brief review of Projects List and Action
>>>>> List
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process
>>>>> (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>>>> Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report translation
>>>>> and transliteration of contact information was submitted to
>>>>> the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The Final Issue Report
>>>>> recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy
>>>>> Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed
>>>>> in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until 
>>>>> the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
>>>>> completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible
>>>>> extension, in order to ensure that the resulting policy
>>>>> recommendations would be consistent with any new model or
>>>>> approaches to contact data that may result from the Expert
>>>>> Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>>> 
>>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final
>>>>> Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a
>>>>> study on the commercial feasibility of translation or
>>>>> transliteration systems for internationalized contact data,
>>>>> which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in
>>>>> its deliberations;
>>>>> 
>>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is
>>>>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and
>>>>> within the scope of the GNSO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Link to motion 
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote. Item 5:
>>>>> UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15
>>>>> minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue
>>>>> regarding the boundary between policy development and
>>>>> implementation work as well as the effective integration of
>>>>> policy development and integration work from the outset.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider
>>>>> issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the
>>>>> evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this
>>>>> type of request.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate
>>>>> further community discussions on this topic. Discussions on
>>>>> the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings
>>>>> indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to
>>>>> the Council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the
>>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to consider
>>>>> next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues
>>>>> Report (10 minutes)
>>>>> 
>>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting
>>>>> that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in
>>>>> Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online
>>>>> template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to
>>>>> gather as much information as possible and engage in early
>>>>> discussions with others prior to submitting a request for
>>>>> an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that by
>>>>> encouraging completion of all the information requested in
>>>>> the template, it will be possible to identify what
>>>>> information may still be needed and encourage collaboration
>>>>> between different interested parties at an early stage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be
>>>>> completed by either by following the instructions or by
>>>>> downloading the word template from the same page. Once
>>>>> completed, Council members will be able to either create a
>>>>> PDF and submit that together with a motion to the Council
>>>>> mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the 
>>>>> motion. Please note that this template is tailored to
>>>>> requests for Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual. 
>>>>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to
>>>>> discuss its usefulness, consider accepting it for future
>>>>> issue reports and consider also where similar templates
>>>>> could be used elsewhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in
>>>>> Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session meetings will
>>>>> have taken place as well as meetings between the Council
>>>>> and other key stakeholders.  This item represents an
>>>>> opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or 
>>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>>> 
>>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds
>>>>> (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise
>>>>> specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO
>>>>> Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO 
>>>>> Council motion or other voting action requires a simple
>>>>> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds
>>>>> described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 
>>>>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of
>>>>> more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority
>>>>> of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process
>>>>> ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an
>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House
>>>>> or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a
>>>>> PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
>>>>> Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP
>>>>> Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than
>>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3)
>>>>> of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not
>>>>> Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO
>>>>> Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter:
>>>>> For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the
>>>>> GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter
>>>>> through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate
>>>>> a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
>>>>> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only
>>>>> for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a
>>>>> GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve
>>>>> a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
>>>>> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and
>>>>> further requires that one GNSO Council member
>>>>> representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups
>>>>> supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP
>>>>> Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
>>>>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP
>>>>> Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain 
>>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision
>>>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council"
>>>>> demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO
>>>>> Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
>>>>> exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation:
>>>>> Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP
>>>>> Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO
>>>>> Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO
>>>>> Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the 
>>>>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4)
>>>>> of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix
>>>>> 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
>>>>> 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for
>>>>> the following limited number of Council motions or
>>>>> measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); 
>>>>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to
>>>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d.
>>>>> Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee
>>>>> ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the 
>>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the
>>>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,
>>>>> announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce
>>>>> this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar
>>>>> days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
>>>>> Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will
>>>>> administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according
>>>>> to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for
>>>>> transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which
>>>>> could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based 
>>>>> interface, or other technologies as may become available. 
>>>>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum
>>>>> requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in
>>>>> which the vote is initiated.) 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio de
>>>>> Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo, Uruguay
>>>>> (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST
>>>>> 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 Abuja,
>>>>> Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany (CEST)
>>>>> UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 
>>>>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15 Karachi,
>>>>> Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15 Beijing/Hong Kong, China
>>>>> (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST
>>>>> 15:15 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
>>>>> local time (with exceptions) 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> 
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO
>>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd
kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI
hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j
8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ
W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq
d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo=
=Xx+w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From rafik.dammak  Mon Apr  1 04:15:27 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:15:27 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com> <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>

Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users"

> Hi Joy,
>
> On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> > We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also
> > request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on the
> > table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion on
> > the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better wait for more
> > conversations (not sure).
> >
> > I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters
> > of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council can
> > take a leadership role in bringing issues up from the bottom.
> JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly undermining
> the Council - why will noone talk about this?
> I think we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that
> policy should stand once it is set until it is re-set through proper
> process. happy to support this.
>

we can remind them the costa rica tragicomedy about the "fall of GNSO" when
we deferred the motion about IOC , maybe we are in that situation thanks to
those who blamed us in that time

Rafik

> >
> > Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the current
> > RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the
> > policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
> JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it, let
> them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
> >
> > A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
> >
> > Propose a long-term planning committee?
> >
> > Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do
> > with their appointees to GNSO Council?
> >
> > --Wendy
> >
> > On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> >> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO Representatives
> >> to actively advance the policy positions of the membership on the
> >> GNSO Council.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Robin
> >>
> >> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>
> >>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the
> >>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't
> >>>> some of them be on the council's agenda for discussion at
> >>>> least?
> >>>>
> >>>> Robin
> >>>>
> >>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> Date: March 31,
> >>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c
> >>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
> >>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10
> >>>>> April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO
> >>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15
> >>>>> UTC (15:15 Local time).
> >>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is also
> >>>>> published on the Wiki at:
> >>>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Motions may be viewed at:
> >>>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council
> >>>>> Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the
> >>>>> GNSO Council and updated. http://
> >>>>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> For convenience:
> >>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting
> >>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this
> >>>>> agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures
> >>>>> defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in
> >>>>> Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 07:15
> >>>>> UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns Coordinated Universal Time
> >>>>> 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15
> >>>>> London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council
> >>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in
> >>>>> advance if a dial out call is needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency
> >>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ? Registrars
> >>>>> Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non Commercial Users
> >>>>> Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ? Non Commercial
> >>>>> Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross ? Not-for-Profit
> >>>>> Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain Berranger. ?
> >>>>> Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa
> >>>>> Cooper ? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?
> >>>>> Kristina Rosette ? Internet Service Providers and
> >>>>> Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break (10
> >>>>> minutes) Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1
> >>>>> Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3
> >>>>> Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the
> >>>>> previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating
> >>>>> Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14
> >>>>> March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013.
> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ? Review
> >>>>> main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review
> >>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> >>>>> topics Include brief review of Projects List and Action
> >>>>> List
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process
> >>>>> (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
> >>>>> Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report translation
> >>>>> and transliteration of contact information was submitted to
> >>>>> the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The Final Issue Report
> >>>>> recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy
> >>>>> Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed
> >>>>> in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until
> >>>>> the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
> >>>>> completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible
> >>>>> extension, in order to ensure that the resulting policy
> >>>>> recommendations would be consistent with any new model or
> >>>>> approaches to contact data that may result from the Expert
> >>>>> Working Group?s deliberations;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final
> >>>>> Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a
> >>>>> study on the commercial feasibility of translation or
> >>>>> transliteration systems for internationalized contact data,
> >>>>> which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in
> >>>>> its deliberations;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is
> >>>>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and
> >>>>> within the scope of the GNSO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Link to motion
> >>>>>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
> >>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote. Item 5:
> >>>>> UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15
> >>>>> minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue
> >>>>> regarding the boundary between policy development and
> >>>>> implementation work as well as the effective integration of
> >>>>> policy development and integration work from the outset.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider
> >>>>> issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the
> >>>>> evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this
> >>>>> type of request.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate
> >>>>> further community discussions on this topic. Discussions on
> >>>>> the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings
> >>>>> indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to
> >>>>> the Council.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the
> >>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to consider
> >>>>> next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues
> >>>>> Report (10 minutes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting
> >>>>> that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in
> >>>>> Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online
> >>>>> template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to
> >>>>> gather as much information as possible and engage in early
> >>>>> discussions with others prior to submitting a request for
> >>>>> an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that by
> >>>>> encouraging completion of all the information requested in
> >>>>> the template, it will be possible to identify what
> >>>>> information may still be needed and encourage collaboration
> >>>>> between different interested parties at an early stage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be
> >>>>> completed by either by following the instructions or by
> >>>>> downloading the word template from the same page. Once
> >>>>> completed, Council members will be able to either create a
> >>>>> PDF and submit that together with a motion to the Council
> >>>>> mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the
> >>>>> motion. Please note that this template is tailored to
> >>>>> requests for Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual.
> >>>>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to
> >>>>> discuss its usefulness, consider accepting it for future
> >>>>> issue reports and consider also where similar templates
> >>>>> could be used elsewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in
> >>>>> Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session meetings will
> >>>>> have taken place as well as meetings between the Council
> >>>>> and other key stakeholders.  This item represents an
> >>>>> opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or
> >>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds
> >>>>> (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise
> >>>>> specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO
> >>>>> Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO
> >>>>> Council motion or other voting action requires a simple
> >>>>> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds
> >>>>> described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> >>>>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of
> >>>>> more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority
> >>>>> of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process
> >>>>> ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an
> >>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House
> >>>>> or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a
> >>>>> PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
> >>>>> Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP
> >>>>> Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> >>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3)
> >>>>> of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not
> >>>>> Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO
> >>>>> Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter:
> >>>>> For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the
> >>>>> GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter
> >>>>> through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate
> >>>>> a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
> >>>>> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only
> >>>>> for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a
> >>>>> GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve
> >>>>> a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
> >>>>> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and
> >>>>> further requires that one GNSO Council member
> >>>>> representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups
> >>>>> supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP
> >>>>> Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> >>>>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP
> >>>>> Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> >>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision
> >>>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council"
> >>>>> demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO
> >>>>> Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
> >>>>> exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation:
> >>>>> Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP
> >>>>> Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO
> >>>>> Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO
> >>>>> Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> >>>>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4)
> >>>>> of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix
> >>>>> 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
> >>>>> 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for
> >>>>> the following limited number of Council motions or
> >>>>> measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> >>>>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to
> >>>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d.
> >>>>> Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee
> >>>>> ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> >>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the
> >>>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,
> >>>>> announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce
> >>>>> this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar
> >>>>> days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
> >>>>> Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will
> >>>>> administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according
> >>>>> to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for
> >>>>> transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which
> >>>>> could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based
> >>>>> interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> >>>>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum
> >>>>> requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in
> >>>>> which the vote is initiated.)
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
> >>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio de
> >>>>> Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo, Uruguay
> >>>>> (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST
> >>>>> 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 Abuja,
> >>>>> Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany (CEST)
> >>>>> UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
> >>>>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15 Karachi,
> >>>>> Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15 Beijing/Hong Kong, China
> >>>>> (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST
> >>>>> 15:15 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
> >>>>> local time (with exceptions)
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO
> >>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ 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
> >>
> >
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd
> kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI
> hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j
> 8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ
> W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq
> d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo=
> =Xx+w
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130401/0995f296/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Mon Apr  1 04:26:25 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:26:25 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com> <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
	<CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5158E241.9040907@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

indeed rafik, indeed :-)

On 1/04/2013 2:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
> Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
> 
> Hi Joy,
> 
> On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also 
>> request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on
>> the table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion
>> on the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better wait for
>> more conversations (not sure).
>> 
>> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters 
>> of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council
>> can take a leadership role in bringing issues up from the
>> bottom.
> JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly
> undermining the Council - why will noone talk about this? I think
> we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that policy
> should stand once it is set until it is re-set through proper 
> process. happy to support this.
> 
> 
> we can remind them the costa rica tragicomedy about the "fall of
> GNSO" when we deferred the motion about IOC , maybe we are in that
> situation thanks to those who blamed us in that time
> 
> Rafik
> 
>> 
>> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the
>> current RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus
>> supporting the policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
> JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it,
> let them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
>> 
>> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
>> 
>> Propose a long-term planning committee?
>> 
>> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do 
>> with their appointees to GNSO Council?
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO
>>> Representatives to actively advance the policy positions of the
>>> membership on the GNSO Council.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Robin
>>> 
>>> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the 
>>>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?
>>>>> Shouldn't some of them be on the council's agenda for
>>>>> discussion at least?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org
> <mailto:Glen at icann.org>> Date: March 31,
>>>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c 
>>>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
>>>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 
>>>>>> April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO 
>>>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 
>>>>>> UTC (15:15 Local time). 
>>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is also 
>>>>>> published on the Wiki at:
>>>>>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> Motions may be viewed at:
>>>>>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO
>>>>>> Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012
>>>>>> for the GNSO Council and updated. http://
>>>>>> 
> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf>
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> For convenience:
>>>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting 
>>>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this 
>>>>>> agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating
>>>>>> Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is
>>>>>> provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting
>>>>>> Times 07:15 UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns Coordinated
>>>>>> Universal Time 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15
>>>>>> Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council 
>>>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>> in advance if a dial out call is needed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency 
>>>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ?
>>>>>> Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non
>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ? Non
>>>>>> Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross ?
>>>>>> Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain
>>>>>> Berranger. ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>>>>>> (BC) ? Elisa Cooper ? Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>>>> (IPC) ? Kristina Rosette ? Internet Service Providers
>>>>>> and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break
>>>>>> (10 minutes) Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>>>>>> 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 
>>>>>> Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for
>>>>>> the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating 
>>>>>> Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 
>>>>>> March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013. 
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ?
>>>>>> Review main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review 
>>>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / 
>>>>>> topics Include brief review of Projects List and Action 
>>>>>> List
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development
>>>>>> Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>> Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report
>>>>>> translation and transliteration of contact information
>>>>>> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see 
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The Final Issue
>>>>>> Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a
>>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues
>>>>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the
>>>>>> PDP until the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory
>>>>>> Services completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with
>>>>>> a possible extension, in order to ensure that the
>>>>>> resulting policy recommendations would be consistent with
>>>>>> any new model or approaches to contact data that may
>>>>>> result from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final 
>>>>>> Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission
>>>>>> a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or 
>>>>>> transliteration systems for internationalized contact
>>>>>> data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working
>>>>>> Group in its deliberations;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is 
>>>>>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process
>>>>>> and within the scope of the GNSO.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Link to motion
>>>>>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote. Item
>>>>>> 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 
>>>>>> minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader
>>>>>> issue regarding the boundary between policy development
>>>>>> and implementation work as well as the effective
>>>>>> integration of policy development and integration work
>>>>>> from the outset.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to
>>>>>> consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to
>>>>>> look at the evolution of its own work and processes to
>>>>>> accommodate this type of request.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate 
>>>>>> further community discussions on this topic. Discussions
>>>>>> on the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings 
>>>>>> indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to 
>>>>>> the Council.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the 
>>>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to
>>>>>> consider next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an
>>>>>> Issues Report (10 minutes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting 
>>>>>> that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in 
>>>>>> Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online 
>>>>>> template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to 
>>>>>> gather as much information as possible and engage in
>>>>>> early discussions with others prior to submitting a
>>>>>> request for an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that
>>>>>> by encouraging completion of all the information
>>>>>> requested in the template, it will be possible to
>>>>>> identify what information may still be needed and
>>>>>> encourage collaboration between different interested
>>>>>> parties at an early stage.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can
>>>>>> be completed by either by following the instructions or
>>>>>> by downloading the word template from the same page.
>>>>>> Once completed, Council members will be able to either
>>>>>> create a PDF and submit that together with a motion to
>>>>>> the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki
>>>>>> link in the motion. Please note that this template is
>>>>>> tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the
>>>>>> PDP Manual. The template is still in draft form and the
>>>>>> Council is to discuss its usefulness, consider accepting
>>>>>> it for future issue reports and consider also where
>>>>>> similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in 
>>>>>> Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session meetings
>>>>>> will have taken place as well as meetings between the
>>>>>> Council and other key stakeholders.  This item represents
>>>>>> an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or 
>>>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting
>>>>>> Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except
>>>>>> as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,
>>>>>> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold
>>>>>> to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action
>>>>>> requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting
>>>>>> thresholds described below shall apply to the following
>>>>>> GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an
>>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of
>>>>>> each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy
>>>>>> Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in
>>>>>> Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than
>>>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds
>>>>>> (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d.
>>>>>> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3)
>>>>>> of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>>>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f.
>>>>>> Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team
>>>>>> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council
>>>>>> may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple
>>>>>> majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once
>>>>>> initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final
>>>>>> Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
>>>>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO
>>>>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a
>>>>>> PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House
>>>>>> and further requires that one GNSO Council member 
>>>>>> representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups 
>>>>>> supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP 
>>>>>> Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an 
>>>>>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a
>>>>>> PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain 
>>>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision 
>>>>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" 
>>>>>> demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO 
>>>>>> Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or 
>>>>>> exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP
>>>>>> Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN
>>>>>> Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
>>>>>> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority
>>>>>> vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a)
>>>>>> two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or
>>>>>> (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of
>>>>>> the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures
>>>>>> (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability
>>>>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited
>>>>>> number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a
>>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP
>>>>>> recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO
>>>>>> Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a
>>>>>> Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee 
>>>>>> ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the 
>>>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the 
>>>>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, 
>>>>>> announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce 
>>>>>> this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar 
>>>>>> days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by
>>>>>> all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will 
>>>>>> administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes
>>>>>> according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
>>>>>> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee
>>>>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-
>>>>>> mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may
>>>>>> become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not
>>>>>> affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for
>>>>>> the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>>>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN
> hemisphere
>>>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio
>>>>>> de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo,
>>>>>> Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST)
>>>>>> UTC+0DST 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST
>>>>>> 08:15 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany
>>>>>> (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden (CET)
>>>>>> UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST
>>>>>> 10:15 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
>>>>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Perth,
>>>>>> Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Wellington, New Zealand
>>>>>> (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
>>>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
>>>>>> local time (with exceptions)
>>>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO 
>>>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight 
>>>>> Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
>>>>> f: +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG 
>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto: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
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>    f:
>>> +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd 
> kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI 
> hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j 
> 8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ 
> W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq 
> d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo= 
> =Xx+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWOJBAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqL20H/i1SV1G3MfkuoUP8YrPUvVsY
g+DLrGJO5QZffn/wizDlQQ0B0h7g5CNNs+I0gxVUnlMgmQ+BlHzEESBDhsaX8xeu
qjkhvp8fIvfm3aWL9qGLOzA1pidOIpTSRVkOtBkR73nXTYs83uKVGgnSw/VoHFo5
M7ITZDLSsTMhMjjRqN//8FNji+cIEBhSlgWvvp5lRnnNdhaHk6XgYm0YLijh4hAH
lynpBQ/SKf2tY+uh+1bq5rDPYq1Wi9kW7TY34e5gMSsSJ+Sm2ad9qXGjEVT3yQfG
yvnIL7iLnpPGGSwdsBvUPJ1vW0DhUhD19k8aWurOyi2Twg+Z22gut8oP2sb5iNY=
=x6Kr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From Mary.Wong  Mon Apr  1 15:05:18 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:05:18 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <5158E241.9040907@apc.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com> <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
	<CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5158E241.9040907@apc.org>
Message-ID: <51593FBE0200005B000A59DD@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Suggest either motion or formal letter - perhaps making a more general
point about undermining GNSO processes and give examples, e.g. TMCH etc.
If motion, need support from elsewhere and if passed, needs to be sure
it gets passed on to Board as matter of urgency and not just published
on web and minutes. 

If neither, then a conversation certainly at minimum, for us and other
groups e.g. contracted parties to bring up to Board at F2F meetings.


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


>>> 


From:  
joy <joy at apc.org> 

To: 
Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 

CC: 
<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
3/31/2013 9:27 PM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in
Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time) 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----
Hash: SHA1

indeed rafik, indeed :-)

On 1/04/2013 2:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
>
> Hi Joy,
>
> On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also
>> request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on
>> the table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion
>> on the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better wait for
>> more conversations (not sure).
>>
>> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters
>> of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council
>> can take a leadership role in bringing issues up from the
>> bottom.
> JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly
> undermining the Council - why will noone talk about this? I think
> we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that policy
> should stand once it is set until it is re-set through proper
> process. happy to support this.
>
>
> we can remind them the costa rica tragicomedy about the "fall of
> GNSO" when we deferred the motion about IOC , maybe we are in that
> situation thanks to those who blamed us in that time
>
> Rafik
>
>>
>> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the
>> current RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus
>> supporting the policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
> JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it,
> let them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
>>
>> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
>>
>> Propose a long-term planning committee?
>>
>> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do
>> with their appointees to GNSO Council?
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO
>>> Representatives to actively advance the policy positions of the
>>> membership on the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Robin
>>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the
>>>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?
>>>>> Shouldn't some of them be on the council's agenda for
>>>>> discussion at least?
>>>>>
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org
> <mailto:Glen at icann.org>> Date: March 31,
>>>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c
>>>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
>>>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10
>>>>>> April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO
>>>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15
>>>>>> UTC (15:15 Local time).
>>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is also
>>>>>> published on the Wiki at:
>>>>>>
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Motions may be viewed at:
>>>>>>
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO
>>>>>> Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012
>>>>>> for the GNSO Council and updated. http://
>>>>>>
> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
> For convenience:
>>>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting
>>>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this
>>>>>> agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating
>>>>>> Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is
>>>>>> provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting
>>>>>> Times 07:15 UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns Coordinated
>>>>>> Universal Time 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15
>>>>>> Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council
>>>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>> in advance if a dial out call is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency
>>>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ?
>>>>>> Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non
>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ? Non
>>>>>> Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross ?
>>>>>> Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain
>>>>>> Berranger. ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>>>>>> (BC) ? Elisa Cooper ? Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>>>> (IPC) ? Kristina Rosette ? Internet Service Providers
>>>>>> and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break
>>>>>> (10 minutes) Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>>>>>> 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3
>>>>>> Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for
>>>>>> the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating
>>>>>> Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14
>>>>>> March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013.
>>>>>>
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ?
>>>>>> Review main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review
>>>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
>>>>>> topics Include brief review of Projects List and Action
>>>>>> List
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development
>>>>>> Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>> Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report
>>>>>> translation and transliteration of contact information
>>>>>> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The Final Issue
>>>>>> Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a
>>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues
>>>>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the
>>>>>> PDP until the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory
>>>>>> Services completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with
>>>>>> a possible extension, in order to ensure that the
>>>>>> resulting policy recommendations would be consistent with
>>>>>> any new model or approaches to contact data that may
>>>>>> result from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final
>>>>>> Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission
>>>>>> a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or
>>>>>> transliteration systems for internationalized contact
>>>>>> data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working
>>>>>> Group in its deliberations;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is
>>>>>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process
>>>>>> and within the scope of the GNSO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Link to motion
>>>>>>
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote. Item
>>>>>> 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15
>>>>>> minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader
>>>>>> issue regarding the boundary between policy development
>>>>>> and implementation work as well as the effective
>>>>>> integration of policy development and integration work
>>>>>> from the outset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to
>>>>>> consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to
>>>>>> look at the evolution of its own work and processes to
>>>>>> accommodate this type of request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate
>>>>>> further community discussions on this topic. Discussions
>>>>>> on the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings
>>>>>> indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to
>>>>>> the Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the
>>>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to
>>>>>> consider next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an
>>>>>> Issues Report (10 minutes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting
>>>>>> that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in
>>>>>> Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online
>>>>>> template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to
>>>>>> gather as much information as possible and engage in
>>>>>> early discussions with others prior to submitting a
>>>>>> request for an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that
>>>>>> by encouraging completion of all the information
>>>>>> requested in the template, it will be possible to
>>>>>> identify what information may still be needed and
>>>>>> encourage collaboration between different interested
>>>>>> parties at an early stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can
>>>>>> be completed by either by following the instructions or
>>>>>> by downloading the word template from the same page.
>>>>>> Once completed, Council members will be able to either
>>>>>> create a PDF and submit that together with a motion to
>>>>>> the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki
>>>>>> link in the motion. Please note that this template is
>>>>>> tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the
>>>>>> PDP Manual. The template is still in draft form and the
>>>>>> Council is to discuss its usefulness, consider accepting
>>>>>> it for future issue reports and consider also where
>>>>>> similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in
>>>>>> Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session meetings
>>>>>> will have taken place as well as meetings between the
>>>>>> Council and other key stakeholders.  This item represents
>>>>>> an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or
>>>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting
>>>>>> Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except
>>>>>> as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,
>>>>>> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold
>>>>>> to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action
>>>>>> requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting
>>>>>> thresholds described below shall apply to the following
>>>>>> GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an
>>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of
>>>>>> each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy
>>>>>> Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in
>>>>>> Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than
>>>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds
>>>>>> (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d.
>>>>>> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3)
>>>>>> of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>>>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f.
>>>>>> Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team
>>>>>> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council
>>>>>> may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple
>>>>>> majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once
>>>>>> initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final
>>>>>> Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
>>>>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO
>>>>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a
>>>>>> PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House
>>>>>> and further requires that one GNSO Council member
>>>>>> representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups
>>>>>> supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP
>>>>>> Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
>>>>>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a
>>>>>> PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
>>>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision
>>>>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council"
>>>>>> demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO
>>>>>> Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
>>>>>> exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP
>>>>>> Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN
>>>>>> Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
>>>>>> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority
>>>>>> vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a)
>>>>>> two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or
>>>>>> (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of
>>>>>> the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures
>>>>>> (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability
>>>>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited
>>>>>> number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a
>>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP
>>>>>> recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO
>>>>>> Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a
>>>>>> Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee
>>>>>> ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
>>>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the
>>>>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,
>>>>>> announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce
>>>>>> this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar
>>>>>> days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by
>>>>>> all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will
>>>>>> administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes
>>>>>> according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
>>>>>> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee
>>>>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-
>>>>>> mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may
>>>>>> become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not
>>>>>> affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for
>>>>>> the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>>>>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN
> hemisphere
>>>>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>>>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio
>>>>>> de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo,
>>>>>> Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST)
>>>>>> UTC+0DST 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST
>>>>>> 08:15 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany
>>>>>> (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden (CET)
>>>>>> UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST
>>>>>> 10:15 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
>>>>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Perth,
>>>>>> Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Wellington, New Zealand
>>>>>> (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
>>>>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
>>>>>> local time (with exceptions)
>>>>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO
>>>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight
>>>>> Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
>>>>> f: +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto: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
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>    f:
>>> +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd
> kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI
> hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j
> 8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ
> W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq
> d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo=
> =Xx+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWOJBAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqL20H/i1SV1G3MfkuoUP8YrPUvVsY
g+DLrGJO5QZffn/wizDlQQ0B0h7g5CNNs+I0gxVUnlMgmQ+BlHzEESBDhsaX8xeu
qjkhvp8fIvfm3aWL9qGLOzA1pidOIpTSRVkOtBkR73nXTYs83uKVGgnSw/VoHFo5
M7ITZDLSsTMhMjjRqN//8FNji+cIEBhSlgWvvp5lRnnNdhaHk6XgYm0YLijh4hAH
lynpBQ/SKf2tY+uh+1bq5rDPYq1Wi9kW7TY34e5gMSsSJ+Sm2ad9qXGjEVT3yQfG
yvnIL7iLnpPGGSwdsBvUPJ1vW0DhUhD19k8aWurOyi2Twg+Z22gut8oP2sb5iNY=
=x6Kr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130401/a29cb442/attachment-0001.html>


From bkuerbis  Mon Apr  1 20:21:56 2013
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:21:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <51593FBE0200005B000A59DD@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com> <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
	<CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5158E241.9040907@apc.org>
	<51593FBE0200005B000A59DD@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3DJAsKTNu1Ot_8z9VhpBSCrW3R-7d9xt0B90Zewcwus3w@mail.gmail.com>

Just catching up here.

I definitely support proposing a discussion exploring the problem of GNSO
processes being undermined.  And I'm leaning toward proposing a motion or
formal letter, even though it will not likely succeed, as a matter of
principle.  What do we have to lose?



On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:05 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

>  Suggest either motion or formal letter - perhaps making a more general
> point about undermining GNSO processes and give examples, e.g. TMCH etc. If
> motion, need support from elsewhere and if passed, needs to be sure it gets
> passed on to Board as matter of urgency and not just published on web and
> minutes.
>
>  If neither, then a conversation certainly at minimum, for us and other
> groups e.g. contracted parties to bring up to Board at F2F meetings.
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
> 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
>
>
> >>>
>
> *From: *
>
> joy <joy at apc.org>
>
> *To:*
>
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>
> *CC:*
>
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>
> *Date: *
>
> 3/31/2013 9:27 PM
>
> *Subject: *
>
> Re: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in
> Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----
>
> Hash: SHA1
>
> indeed rafik, indeed :-)
>
> On 1/04/2013 2:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >
> > Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
> >
> > Hi Joy,
> >
> > On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> >> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also
> >> request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on
> >> the table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion
> >> on the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better wait for
> >> more conversations (not sure).
> >>
> >> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters
> >> of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council
> >> can take a leadership role in bringing issues up from the
> >> bottom.
> > JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly
> > undermining the Council - why will noone talk about this? I think
> > we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that policy
> > should stand once it is set until it is re-set through proper
> > process. happy to support this.
> >
> >
> > we can remind them the costa rica tragicomedy about the "fall of
> > GNSO" when we deferred the motion about IOC , maybe we are in that
> > situation thanks to those who blamed us in that time
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >>
> >> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the
> >> current RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus
> >> supporting the policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
> > JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it,
> > let them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
> >>
> >> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
> >>
> >> Propose a long-term planning committee?
> >>
> >> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do
> >> with their appointees to GNSO Council?
> >>
> >> --Wendy
> >>
> >> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> >>> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO
> >>> Representatives to actively advance the policy positions of the
> >>> membership on the GNSO Council.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Robin
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the
> >>>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?
> >>>>> Shouldn't some of them be on the council's agenda for
> >>>>> discussion at least?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org
> > <mailto:Glen at icann.org>> Date: March 31,
> >>>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c
> >>>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> > Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
> >>>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10
> >>>>>> April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO
> >>>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15
> >>>>>> UTC (15:15 Local time).
> >>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is also
> >>>>>> published on the Wiki at:
> >>>>>>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > Motions may be viewed at:
> >>>>>>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO
> >>>>>> Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012
> >>>>>> for the GNSO Council and updated. http://
> >>>>>>
> > gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
> > <
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf>
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > For convenience:
> >>>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting
> >>>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this
> >>>>>> agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating
> >>>>>> Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is
> >>>>>> provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting
> >>>>>> Times 07:15 UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns Coordinated
> >>>>>> Universal Time 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15
> >>>>>> Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council
> >>>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat
> >>>>>> in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency
> >>>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ?
> >>>>>> Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non
> >>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ? Non
> >>>>>> Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross ?
> >>>>>> Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain
> >>>>>> Berranger. ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency
> >>>>>> (BC) ? Elisa Cooper ? Intellectual Property Constituency
> >>>>>> (IPC) ? Kristina Rosette ? Internet Service Providers
> >>>>>> and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break
> >>>>>> (10 minutes) Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> >>>>>> 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3
> >>>>>> Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for
> >>>>>> the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating
> >>>>>> Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14
> >>>>>> March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013.
> >>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > 1.5. GNSO Projects List
> >>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ?
> >>>>>> Review main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review
> >>>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> >>>>>> topics Include brief review of Projects List and Action
> >>>>>> List
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development
> >>>>>> Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of
> >>>>>> Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report
> >>>>>> translation and transliteration of contact information
> >>>>>> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
> >>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The Final Issue
> >>>>>> Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a
> >>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues
> >>>>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the
> >>>>>> PDP until the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory
> >>>>>> Services completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with
> >>>>>> a possible extension, in order to ensure that the
> >>>>>> resulting policy recommendations would be consistent with
> >>>>>> any new model or approaches to contact data that may
> >>>>>> result from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final
> >>>>>> Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission
> >>>>>> a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or
> >>>>>> transliteration systems for internationalized contact
> >>>>>> data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working
> >>>>>> Group in its deliberations;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is
> >>>>>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process
> >>>>>> and within the scope of the GNSO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link to motion
> >>>>>>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
> >>>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote. Item
> >>>>>> 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15
> >>>>>> minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader
> >>>>>> issue regarding the boundary between policy development
> >>>>>> and implementation work as well as the effective
> >>>>>> integration of policy development and integration work
> >>>>>> from the outset.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to
> >>>>>> consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to
> >>>>>> look at the evolution of its own work and processes to
> >>>>>> accommodate this type of request.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate
> >>>>>> further community discussions on this topic. Discussions
> >>>>>> on the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings
> >>>>>> indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to
> >>>>>> the Council.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the
> >>>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to
> >>>>>> consider next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an
> >>>>>> Issues Report (10 minutes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting
> >>>>>> that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in
> >>>>>> Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online
> >>>>>> template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to
> >>>>>> gather as much information as possible and engage in
> >>>>>> early discussions with others prior to submitting a
> >>>>>> request for an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that
> >>>>>> by encouraging completion of all the information
> >>>>>> requested in the template, it will be possible to
> >>>>>> identify what information may still be needed and
> >>>>>> encourage collaboration between different interested
> >>>>>> parties at an early stage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can
> >>>>>> be completed by either by following the instructions or
> >>>>>> by downloading the word template from the same page.
> >>>>>> Once completed, Council members will be able to either
> >>>>>> create a PDF and submit that together with a motion to
> >>>>>> the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki
> >>>>>> link in the motion. Please note that this template is
> >>>>>> tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the
> >>>>>> PDP Manual. The template is still in draft form and the
> >>>>>> Council is to discuss its usefulness, consider accepting
> >>>>>> it for future issue reports and consider also where
> >>>>>> similar templates could be used elsewhere.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in
> >>>>>> Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session meetings
> >>>>>> will have taken place as well as meetings between the
> >>>>>> Council and other key stakeholders.  This item represents
> >>>>>> an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or
> >>>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting
> >>>>>> Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except
> >>>>>> as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,
> >>>>>> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold
> >>>>>> to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action
> >>>>>> requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting
> >>>>>> thresholds described below shall apply to the following
> >>>>>> GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an
> >>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of
> >>>>>> each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy
> >>>>>> Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in
> >>>>>> Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than
> >>>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds
> >>>>>> (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope:
> >>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d.
> >>>>>> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope:
> >>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3)
> >>>>>> of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> >>>>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope:
> >>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f.
> >>>>>> Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team
> >>>>>> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council
> >>>>>> may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple
> >>>>>> majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once
> >>>>>> initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final
> >>>>>> Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
> >>>>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO
> >>>>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a
> >>>>>> PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
> >>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House
> >>>>>> and further requires that one GNSO Council member
> >>>>>> representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups
> >>>>>> supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP
> >>>>>> Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> >>>>>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a
> >>>>>> PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> >>>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision
> >>>>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council"
> >>>>>> demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO
> >>>>>> Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
> >>>>>> exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP
> >>>>>> Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN
> >>>>>> Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
> >>>>>> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority
> >>>>>> vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a)
> >>>>>> two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or
> >>>>>> (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of
> >>>>>> the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures
> >>>>>> (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability
> >>>>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited
> >>>>>> number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a
> >>>>>> Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP
> >>>>>> recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO
> >>>>>> Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a
> >>>>>> Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee
> >>>>>> ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> >>>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the
> >>>>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,
> >>>>>> announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce
> >>>>>> this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar
> >>>>>> days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by
> >>>>>> all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will
> >>>>>> administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes
> >>>>>> according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
> >>>>>> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee
> >>>>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-
> >>>>>> mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may
> >>>>>> become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not
> >>>>>> affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for
> >>>>>> the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> >>>>>>
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN
> > hemisphere
> >>>>>>
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
> >>>>>>
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
> >>>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio
> >>>>>> de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo,
> >>>>>> Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST)
> >>>>>> UTC+0DST 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST
> >>>>>> 08:15 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany
> >>>>>> (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden (CET)
> >>>>>> UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST
> >>>>>> 10:15 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
> >>>>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Perth,
> >>>>>> Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Wellington, New Zealand
> >>>>>> (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
> >>>>>>
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
> >>>>>> local time (with exceptions)
> >>>>>>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO
> >>>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> > <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight
> >>>>> Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261
> > <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
> >>>>> f: +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> > http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
> >>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
> >>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
> >>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> <mailto: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
> > <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>    f:
> >>> +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> > http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
> >>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
> >>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd
> > kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI
> > hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j
> > 8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ
> > W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq
> > d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo=
> > =Xx+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> > list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWOJBAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqL20H/i1SV1G3MfkuoUP8YrPUvVsY
> g+DLrGJO5QZffn/wizDlQQ0B0h7g5CNNs+I0gxVUnlMgmQ+BlHzEESBDhsaX8xeu
> qjkhvp8fIvfm3aWL9qGLOzA1pidOIpTSRVkOtBkR73nXTYs83uKVGgnSw/VoHFo5
> M7ITZDLSsTMhMjjRqN//8FNji+cIEBhSlgWvvp5lRnnNdhaHk6XgYm0YLijh4hAH
> lynpBQ/SKf2tY+uh+1bq5rDPYq1Wi9kW7TY34e5gMSsSJ+Sm2ad9qXGjEVT3yQfG
> yvnIL7iLnpPGGSwdsBvUPJ1vW0DhUhD19k8aWurOyi2Twg+Z22gut8oP2sb5iNY=
> =x6Kr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130401/e479721e/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Mon Apr  1 23:40:02 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:40:02 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3DJAsKTNu1Ot_8z9VhpBSCrW3R-7d9xt0B90Zewcwus3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
	<51586667.2050604@seltzer.com> <5158DC8C.806@apc.org>
	<CAH5sTh=U5H8tv2kY8xX5EThUO689uBRpGobyLKhh1dHxC4gUBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5158E241.9040907@apc.org>
	<51593FBE0200005B000A59DD@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<CANwsP3DJAsKTNu1Ot_8z9VhpBSCrW3R-7d9xt0B90Zewcwus3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5159F0A2.3010404@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi - just going back to Wendy's original proposals, it seems, if I can
summarise inputs so far:

1. there is not support for a motion on the RAA issues, but there is
support for proposing a topic for GNSO Council discussion of the more
general issue regarding concerns about the current "routing problems"
with GNSO Council decision making .... Wendy suggested this be framed
around:

>>> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the
>>> matters of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the
>>> Council can take a leadership role in bringing issues up from
>>> the bottom. .

Wendy also suggested:
2.     >> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?

is there any support for this idea?

We have until tomorrow to table other items for the Council meeting


Cheers
Joy

On 2/04/2013 6:21 a.m., Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> Just catching up here.
> 
> I definitely support proposing a discussion exploring the problem
> of GNSO processes being undermined.  And I'm leaning toward
> proposing a motion or formal letter, even though it will not likely
> succeed, as a matter of principle.  What do we have to lose?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:05 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu 
> <mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Suggest either motion or formal letter - perhaps making a more 
> general point about undermining GNSO processes and give examples, 
> e.g. TMCH etc. If motion, need support from elsewhere and if
> passed, needs to be sure it gets passed on to Board as matter of
> urgency and not just published on web and minutes.
> 
> 
> If neither, then a conversation certainly at minimum, for us and 
> other groups e.g. contracted parties to bring up to Board at F2F 
> meetings.
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP
> Partnerships 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 <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu> Phone:
> 1-603-513-5143 <tel:1-603-513-5143> Webpage:
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
> *From: *
> 
> 
> 
> joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
> 
> *To:*
> 
> 
> 
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> 
> *CC:*
> 
> 
> 
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> 
> *Date: *
> 
> 
> 
> 3/31/2013 9:27 PM
> 
> *Subject: *
> 
> 
> 
> Re: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----
> 
> 
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> indeed rafik, indeed :-)
> 
> On 1/04/2013 2:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> 
>> Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
>> 
>> Hi Joy,
>> 
>> On 1/04/2013 5:37 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>> We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also 
>>> request items for discussion even if we don't have motions on 
>>> the table. We might work with Jeff and others to propose a
>>> motion on the privacy/proxy "accreditation," or might better
>>> wait for more conversations (not sure).
>>> 
>>> I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the
>>> matters of bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the
>>> Council can take a leadership role in bringing issues up from
>>> the bottom.
>> JL: good idea - we need to call out the IPC for constantly 
>> undermining the Council - why will noone talk about this? I
>> think we also need to inject a rule of law thread to this ie that
>> policy should stand once it is set until it is re-set through
>> proper process. happy to support this.
>> 
>> 
>> we can remind them the costa rica tragicomedy about the "fall of 
>> GNSO" when we deferred the motion about IOC , maybe we are in
>> that situation thanks to those who blamed us in that time
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>>> 
>>> Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the 
>>> current RAA to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus 
>>> supporting the policy changes in any proposed new RAA?
>> JL: Also happy with this - if the Registrars do not support it, 
>> let them be on record for that. happy to help with drafting it.
>>> 
>>> A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?
>>> 
>>> Propose a long-term planning committee?
>>> 
>>> Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should
>>> do with their appointees to GNSO Council?
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>> On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO 
>>>> Representatives to actively advance the policy positions of
>>>> the membership on the GNSO Council.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, Robin
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the 
>>>>>> weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots? Shouldn't
>>>>>> some of them be on the council's agenda for discussion at
>>>>>> least?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>> Date: March 31,
>>>>>>> 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT To: liaison6c 
>>>>>>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org> 
>>>>>>> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>>
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed
>>>>>>> Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing
>>>>>>> 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear All, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO 
>>>>>>> Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at
>>>>>>> 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time). 
>>>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155 The agenda is
>>>>>>> also published on the Wiki at:
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> Motions may be viewed at:
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO 
>>>>>>> Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September
>>>>>>> 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://
>>>>>>> 
>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>
>> 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf>
>> 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf>
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> For convenience:
>>>>>>> ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting 
>>>>>>> thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of
>>>>>>> this agenda. ? An excerpt from the Council Operating 
>>>>>>> Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is 
>>>>>>> provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
>>>>>>> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>>>> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC 00:15 Los Angeles;
>>>>>>> 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15
>>>>>>> Wellington
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council 
>>>>>>> members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat 
>>>>>>> in advance if a dial out call is needed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency 
>>>>>>> Leaders (60 minutes)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek ? 
>>>>>>> Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin ? Non 
>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake ?
>>>>>>> Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
>>>>>>> ? Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ?
>>>>>>> Alain Berranger. ? Commercial and Business Users
>>>>>>> Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper ? Intellectual
>>>>>>> Property Constituency (IPC) ? Kristina Rosette ?
>>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
>>>>>>> (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes Break (10 minutes) Item 1:
>>>>>>> Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2
>>>>>>> Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>>>>>>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous
>>>>>>> Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>>>>>>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013
>>>>>>> approved on 30 March 2013.
>>>>>>> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf ? 
>>>>>>> Review main changes. ? Comments and/or questions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes) Review 
>>>>>>> focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes
>>>>>>> / topics Include brief review of Projects List and
>>>>>>> Action List
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development 
>>>>>>> Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>>> of Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue
>>>>>>> Report translation and transliteration of contact
>>>>>>> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21
>>>>>>> March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library). The
>>>>>>> Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
>>>>>>> should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP)
>>>>>>> limited to the issues discussed in this report but
>>>>>>> delay the next steps in the PDP until the Expert
>>>>>>> Working Group on gTLD Directory Services completes its
>>>>>>> recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible extension,
>>>>>>> in order to ensure that the resulting policy
>>>>>>> recommendations would be consistent with any new model
>>>>>>> or approaches to contact data that may result from the
>>>>>>> Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the
>>>>>>> Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should
>>>>>>> commission a study on the commercial feasibility of
>>>>>>> translation or transliteration systems for
>>>>>>> internationalized contact data, which is expected to
>>>>>>> help inform the PDP Working Group in its
>>>>>>> deliberations;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic
>>>>>>> is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy
>>>>>>> process and within the scope of the GNSO.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Link to motion
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>>>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote.
>>>>>>> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation
>>>>>>> (15 minutes) Recent issues highlight an ongoing
>>>>>>> broader issue regarding the boundary between policy
>>>>>>> development and implementation work as well as the
>>>>>>> effective integration of policy development and
>>>>>>> integration work from the outset.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to 
>>>>>>> consider issues for policy guidance and may well need
>>>>>>> to look at the evolution of its own work and processes
>>>>>>> to accommodate this type of request.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate 
>>>>>>> further community discussions on this topic.
>>>>>>> Discussions on the Council mailing list and at
>>>>>>> subsequent meetings indicate that this is an area of
>>>>>>> fundamental interest to the Council.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the 
>>>>>>> Council is to discuss the current position and to 
>>>>>>> consider next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an 
>>>>>>> Issues Report (10 minutes)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation
>>>>>>> meeting that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN
>>>>>>> staff in Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an
>>>>>>> online template to complete the request for an Issue
>>>>>>> Report.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors
>>>>>>> to gather as much information as possible and engage
>>>>>>> in early discussions with others prior to submitting a 
>>>>>>> request for an Issue Report. The intended outcome is
>>>>>>> that by encouraging completion of all the information 
>>>>>>> requested in the template, it will be possible to 
>>>>>>> identify what information may still be needed and 
>>>>>>> encourage collaboration between different interested 
>>>>>>> parties at an early stage.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg)
>>>>>>> can be completed by either by following the
>>>>>>> instructions or by downloading the word template from
>>>>>>> the same page. Once completed, Council members will be
>>>>>>> able to either create a PDF and submit that together
>>>>>>> with a motion to the Council mailing list, or insert
>>>>>>> the relevant wiki link in the motion. Please note that
>>>>>>> this template is tailored to requests for Issue Reports
>>>>>>> as defined in the PDP Manual. The template is still in
>>>>>>> draft form and the Council is to discuss its
>>>>>>> usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue
>>>>>>> reports and consider also where similar templates could
>>>>>>> be used elsewhere.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions
>>>>>>> in Beijing (15 minutes) A series of main session
>>>>>>> meetings will have taken place as well as meetings
>>>>>>> between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This
>>>>>>> item represents an opportunity to capture and review
>>>>>>> any key outcomes or actions arising from those
>>>>>>> meetings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Open Microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting 
>>>>>>> Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9.
>>>>>>> Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A
>>>>>>> hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default
>>>>>>> threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting
>>>>>>> action requires a simple majority vote of each House.
>>>>>>> The voting thresholds described below shall apply to
>>>>>>> the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report:
>>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth
>>>>>>> (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b.
>>>>>>> Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within
>>>>>>> Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an
>>>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each
>>>>>>> House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c.
>>>>>>> Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
>>>>>>> affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a
>>>>>>> PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
>>>>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each
>>>>>>> House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e.
>>>>>>> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: 
>>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>>>>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP
>>>>>>> Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO
>>>>>>> Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through
>>>>>>> a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a
>>>>>>> PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
>>>>>>> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only
>>>>>>> for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a
>>>>>>> GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h.
>>>>>>> Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO
>>>>>>> Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a
>>>>>>> majority of each House and further requires that one
>>>>>>> GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the
>>>>>>> 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i.
>>>>>>> Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority:
>>>>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>>>>>>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New
>>>>>>> Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an
>>>>>>> ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds
>>>>>>> vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
>>>>>>> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will
>>>>>>> have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved
>>>>>>> PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the
>>>>>>> ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be
>>>>>>> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO
>>>>>>> Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall
>>>>>>> mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of
>>>>>>> each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and
>>>>>>> a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee
>>>>>>> Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1
>>>>>>> Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the
>>>>>>> following limited number of Council motions or
>>>>>>> measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process
>>>>>>> (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend
>>>>>>> amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
>>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for
>>>>>>> election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must
>>>>>>> be submitted within the announced time limit, which
>>>>>>> shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. In
>>>>>>> exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the
>>>>>>> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or
>>>>>>> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such
>>>>>>> amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs
>>>>>>> present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer,
>>>>>>> record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these
>>>>>>> procedures and will provide reasonable means for
>>>>>>> transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which
>>>>>>> could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based
>>>>>>> interface, or other technologies as may become
>>>>>>> available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect
>>>>>>> quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the
>>>>>>> meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN 
>> hemisphere
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>>>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15 Rio 
>>>>>>> de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Montevideo, 
>>>>>>> Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 Edinburgh, Scotland
>>>>>>> (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 London, United Kingdom (BST)
>>>>>>> UTC+0DST 08:15 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
>>>>>>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Stockholm, Sweden
>>>>>>> (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST)
>>>>>>> UTC+2+0DST 10:15 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST
>>>>>>> 12:15 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
>>>>>>> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 Wellington, New
>>>>>>> Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
>>>>>>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
>>>>>>> local time (with exceptions)
>>>>>>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> 
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO 
>>>>>>> Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight 
>>>>>> Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
>> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
>>>>>> f: +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451>
> <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
>> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG 
>>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>> 
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG 
>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto: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
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>
>> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>    f:
>>>> +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451>
>>>> <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
>> http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG 
>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWNyLAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrbQIALGbV/EouGzwsMc8xXZ9pWfd 
>> kL51Dj8Ed442lJTVEVwWgmFXsj+WDRVZ43Y3WEgZvI6SHOnVgeXJLNPGPWMV2fEI 
>> hHnig8tOwTpeph0gLpeCjo8549g0FmIop4iss3g78X0tDiMFprYnrQLgNMVQn2/j 
>> 8y6Mf77nMB9r1ct0QUD6pFTolTEUfRZhhmqthND/tR0w2r1skqjV3XserIU8KHZZ 
>> W8jMPLrPAc9/Ne/fohDIAvUNVU0jsKdKx0g9K8a2O0wphWX0VCBMH1qUED61Gucq 
>> d0gZ7WblUAdptoHlD35mRkd2Md4+r8Ne9qk/iV/WAAvKfWZhoJ1ZISvH9J/NuOo= 
>> =Xx+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing 
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWOJBAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqL20H/i1SV1G3MfkuoUP8YrPUvVsY 
> g+DLrGJO5QZffn/wizDlQQ0B0h7g5CNNs+I0gxVUnlMgmQ+BlHzEESBDhsaX8xeu 
> qjkhvp8fIvfm3aWL9qGLOzA1pidOIpTSRVkOtBkR73nXTYs83uKVGgnSw/VoHFo5 
> M7ITZDLSsTMhMjjRqN//8FNji+cIEBhSlgWvvp5lRnnNdhaHk6XgYm0YLijh4hAH 
> lynpBQ/SKf2tY+uh+1bq5rDPYq1Wi9kW7TY34e5gMSsSJ+Sm2ad9qXGjEVT3yQfG 
> yvnIL7iLnpPGGSwdsBvUPJ1vW0DhUhD19k8aWurOyi2Twg+Z22gut8oP2sb5iNY= 
> =x6Kr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWfCiAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqqOkH/27dIx78kI+A4gqwkHu2fP5R
FfzqanLJ3T/JKe0iD/Fle/Qs8epffwvzwwATbIswCJaBrGUZ6n6095o7W2XlUZ/n
d4qnwV0fJSzizl+puiOSGF1txdKQCJo9rczhS18BtIIIrp2g6Wp/DetFK7VSVhxL
s//Dm7xZzIViv81TN00AhRRv1A5euGfoQjFvayKeW0Qa/6oT7DeFaioFE8oa4uXZ
Ps3S1A+ahYjCyWNDGKmAarIaFB9HZuf9sas1x4h5QKdG8iuihXZFMv358v3e3DiJ
00CHHkVWj5BgKq9FnxZesq6vfd8q4QaKaO/ksg/UC67TlJQ3gjPOf4r7YXvHlc4=
=UbXM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From robin  Tue Apr  2 08:14:34 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:14:34 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from Wendy,
	Joy and me?
Message-ID: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>

Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during  
the present Reply comment period?

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html

In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
reflect good public policy.

The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
(or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
intervene on the substance of contested questions.

The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
interests of all of the stakeholders.

Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
basic and profoundly important architectural feature.

Additional problems with the most recent changes:

* They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.

* The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
very rights the proposal seeks to assert.

* The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
stage.

ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
exercise of free expression rights.

We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
amendments.

--Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130401/18fb0ea7/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Tue Apr  2 10:43:27 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:43:27 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
	Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>

I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement. 

On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
> 
> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
> reflect good public policy.
> 
> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
> 
> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
> interests of all of the stakeholders.
> 
> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
> 
> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
> 
> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
> 
> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
> 
> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
> stage.
> 
> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> exercise of free expression rights.
> 
> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> amendments.
> 
> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/1f889f8e/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Tue Apr  2 10:53:38 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:53:38 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
 Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>

+1.

Maria


On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement.
>
> On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the
> present Reply comment period?
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
>
> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
> reflect good public policy.
>
> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
>
> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
> interests of all of the stakeholders.
>
> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
>
> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
>
> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
>
> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
>
> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
> stage.
>
> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> exercise of free expression rights.
>
> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> amendments.
>
> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
>
>
>
>
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/115987a7/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Tue Apr  2 11:03:57 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:03:57 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
	Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <764947F2-4AAD-4B96-B54F-B7D6DE348D54@uzh.ch>

+another

On Apr 2, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> +1.
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement. 
> 
> On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
>> 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
>> 
>> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
>> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
>> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
>> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
>> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
>> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
>> reflect good public policy.
>> 
>> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
>> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
>> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
>> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
>> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
>> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
>> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
>> 
>> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
>> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
>> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
>> interests of all of the stakeholders.
>> 
>> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
>> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
>> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
>> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
>> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
>> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
>> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
>> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
>> 
>> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
>> 
>> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
>> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
>> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
>> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
>> 
>> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
>> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
>> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
>> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
>> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
>> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
>> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
>> 
>> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
>> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
>> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
>> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
>> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
>> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
>> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
>> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
>> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
>> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
>> stage.
>> 
>> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
>> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
>> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
>> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
>> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
>> exercise of free expression rights.
>> 
>> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
>> amendments.
>> 
>> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/ee860343/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Apr  2 11:10:38 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 04:10:38 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
	Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F7783F88-CBFD-45C0-9E81-E1B003877685@ella.com>

+1

On 2 Apr 2013, at 03:53, Maria Farrell wrote:

> +1.
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement. 
> 
> On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
>> 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
>> 
>> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
>> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
>> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
>> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
>> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
>> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
>> reflect good public policy.
>> 
>> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
>> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
>> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
>> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
>> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
>> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
>> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
>> 
>> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
>> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
>> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
>> interests of all of the stakeholders.
>> 
>> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
>> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
>> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
>> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
>> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
>> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
>> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
>> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
>> 
>> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
>> 
>> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
>> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
>> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
>> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
>> 
>> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
>> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
>> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
>> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
>> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
>> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
>> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
>> 
>> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
>> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
>> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
>> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
>> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
>> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
>> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
>> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
>> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
>> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
>> stage.
>> 
>> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
>> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
>> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
>> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
>> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
>> exercise of free expression rights.
>> 
>> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
>> amendments.
>> 
>> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 rudi.vansnick  Tue Apr  2 11:22:53 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:22:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
	Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <6BC47D90-4A1D-4739-B3C1-D0C835BBF5BD@isoc.be>

I agree too ... 

And as said during last conf call, the RAA should have a broader range, also affecting the registries in the ccTLD world. Many problems are due to the fact the RAA is not applicable on "ccTLD - registrars".

Rudi Vansnick

Op 2-apr-2013, om 07:14 heeft Robin Gross het volgende geschreven:

> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
> 
> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
> reflect good public policy.
> 
> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
> 
> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
> interests of all of the stakeholders.
> 
> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
> 
> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
> 
> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
> 
> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
> 
> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
> stage.
> 
> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> exercise of free expression rights.
> 
> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> amendments.
> 
> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/1a0e3249/attachment.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Tue Apr  2 12:31:10 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:31:10 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA
 from	Wendy, Joy and me?
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I join the support
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Di 02.04.2013 09:43
An: Robin Gross
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from Wendy, Joy and me?


I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement.  

On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:


	Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?

	http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html 

	
	In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
	regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
	so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
	interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
	Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
	Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
	reflect good public policy.

	The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
	are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
	representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
	(or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
	the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
	right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
	intervene on the substance of contested questions.

	The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
	disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
	Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
	interests of all of the stakeholders.

	Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
	are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
	unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
	ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
	in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
	To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
	when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
	basic and profoundly important architectural feature.

	Additional problems with the most recent changes:

	* They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
	basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
	solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
	any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.

	* The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
	rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
	should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
	across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
	aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
	without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
	very rights the proposal seeks to assert.

	* The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
	providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
	come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
	of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
	registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
	privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
	on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
	subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
	registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
	expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
	stage.

	ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
	registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
	depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
	this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
	registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
	exercise of free expression rights.

	We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
	amendments.

	--Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross



	

	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 <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 bkuerbis  Tue Apr  2 13:06:48 2013
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 06:06:48 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
 Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <F7783F88-CBFD-45C0-9E81-E1B003877685@ella.com>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<F7783F88-CBFD-45C0-9E81-E1B003877685@ella.com>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3CUVzD50yOFfPXtAOcg0OzBcwTgSKYt01doRUFSdRetRQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1
On Apr 2, 2013 4:10 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On 2 Apr 2013, at 03:53, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
> > +1.
> >
> > Maria
> >
> >
> > On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement.
> >
> > On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the
> present Reply comment period?
> >>
> >>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
> >>
> >> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> >> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
> >> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> >> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
> >> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
> >> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
> >> reflect good public policy.
> >>
> >> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> >> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> >> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
> >> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> >> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> >> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
> >> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
> >>
> >> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> >> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> >> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
> >> interests of all of the stakeholders.
> >>
> >> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
> >> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
> >> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
> >> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
> >> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
> >> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
> >> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
> >> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
> >>
> >> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
> >>
> >> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
> >> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
> >> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
> >> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
> >>
> >> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
> >> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
> >> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> >> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
> >> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
> >> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
> >> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
> >>
> >> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
> >> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
> >> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
> >> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
> >> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
> >> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
> >> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
> >> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
> >> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
> >> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
> >> stage.
> >>
> >> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> >> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> >> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
> >> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> >> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> >> exercise of free expression rights.
> >>
> >> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> >> amendments.
> >>
> >> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/4f9192ec/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Tue Apr  2 16:33:31 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:33:31 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing GNSO
Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light and doesn't
touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and TMCH. Robin suggested we
try and prompt discussion on the TMCH, so here's a draft motion I could
propose - VERY happy to take re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it
today, April 2nd.

Cheers, Maria


"The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent
adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH "Strawman
Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO stakeholders and developed in
an un-transparent manner by a numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN
stakeholders. The significant expansion by staff of rights protection
mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy
process of the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. The
GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the CEO to the
Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January 2013 that the process
of developing these further rights protection mechanisms was procedurally
flawed and did not meet ICANN's standards of transparency and
accountability. The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN
staff and a small number of stakeholders to circumvent the established,
transparent and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of
the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more
generally."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/036ad07d/attachment.html>


From dave  Tue Apr  2 18:17:56 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:17:56 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0E87CAC-FEE1-44F6-8E4D-1DBF5A8A34CF@difference.com.au>

I would suggest specifically mentioning that ICANN itself ( and ALAC, and the GNSO) all agree that it is policy, not implantation, and no justification at all is offered for staff treating it as an implementation issue with no need for the involvement of the GNSO or any other policy process. 

On 02/04/2013, at 9:33 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing GNSO Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light and doesn't touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and TMCH. Robin suggested we try and prompt discussion on the TMCH, so here's a draft motion I could propose - VERY happy to take re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it today, April 2nd.
> 
> Cheers, Maria
> 
> 
> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH "Strawman Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO stakeholders and developed in an un-transparent manner by a numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN stakeholders. The significant expansion by staff of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy process of the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. The GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the CEO to the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January 2013 that the process of developing these further rights protection mechanisms was procedurally flawed and did not meet ICANN's standards of transparency and accountability. The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN staff and a small number of stakeholders to circumvent the established, transparent and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more generally." 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From Mary.Wong  Tue Apr  2 20:20:24 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:20:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
 Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3CUVzD50yOFfPXtAOcg0OzBcwTgSKYt01doRUFSdRetRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<5F40407C-BBD0-419F-B7B2-480B8925622D@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdCAbZ_HNwhqyaZa0ZDJsnftXVJooYRVt8yS+QK7DyJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<F7783F88-CBFD-45C0-9E81-E1B003877685@ella.com>
	<CANwsP3CUVzD50yOFfPXtAOcg0OzBcwTgSKYt01doRUFSdRetRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <515ADB180200005B000A5C46@smtp.law.unh.edu>


It would be good to stimulate a community-wide discussion on this, esp. with the Rrs on the same side for the most part, so, yes from me too.


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


>>> 


From:  
Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> 

To: 
NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
4/2/2013 6:07 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from Wendy, Joy and me? 

+1 
On Apr 2, 2013 4:10 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com> wrote:



+1

On 2 Apr 2013, at 03:53, Maria Farrell wrote:

> +1.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement.
>
> On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
>>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
>>
>> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
>> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
>> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
>> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
>> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
>> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
>> reflect good public policy.
>>
>> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
>> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
>> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
>> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
>> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
>> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
>> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
>>
>> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
>> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
>> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
>> interests of all of the stakeholders.
>>
>> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
>> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
>> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
>> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
>> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
>> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
>> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
>> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
>>
>> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
>>
>> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
>> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
>> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
>> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
>>
>> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
>> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
>> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
>> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
>> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS. To purport to define these
>> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
>> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
>>
>> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
>> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
>> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
>> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
>> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
>> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
>> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
>> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
>> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
>> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
>> stage.
>>
>> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
>> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
>> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
>> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
>> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
>> exercise of free expression rights.
>>
>> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
>> amendments.
>>
>> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261 ( tel:%2B1-415-553-6261 ) f: +1-415-462-6451 ( tel:%2B1-415-462-6451 )
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/4c76397c/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Tue Apr  2 22:08:19 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:08:19 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <D0E87CAC-FEE1-44F6-8E4D-1DBF5A8A34CF@difference.com.au>
References: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E87CAC-FEE1-44F6-8E4D-1DBF5A8A34CF@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <515B2CA3.6010401@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

thanks Maria - looks good

Joy

On 3/04/2013 4:17 a.m., David Cake wrote:
> I would suggest specifically mentioning that ICANN itself ( and
> ALAC, and the GNSO) all agree that it is policy, not implantation,
> and no justification at all is offered for staff treating it as an
> implementation issue with no need for the involvement of the GNSO
> or any other policy process.
> 
> On 02/04/2013, at 9:33 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing
>> GNSO Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light
>> and doesn't touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and
>> TMCH. Robin suggested we try and prompt discussion on the TMCH,
>> so here's a draft motion I could propose - VERY happy to take
>> re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it today, April 2nd.
>> 
>> Cheers, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the
>> recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH
>> "Strawman Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO
>> stakeholders and developed in an un-transparent manner by a
>> numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN stakeholders. The
>> significant expansion by staff of rights protection mechanisms in
>> the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy process of
>> the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an
>> unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN
>> staff. The GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the
>> CEO to the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January
>> 2013 that the process of developing these further rights
>> protection mechanisms was procedurally flawed and did not meet
>> ICANN's standards of transparency and accountability. The GNSO
>> Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN staff and a small
>> number of stakeholders to circumvent the established, transparent
>> and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of
>> the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder
>> model more generally."
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWyyjAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqAOUIAIz0lMwbJfsFWaK9G3aCbVTL
9GKfzmbdmg+q+X5x/IHlksYXUIW94eoWXMsIDLaITwQ0F/6JFdcMqsmldrdtorxT
RshKpe4NFvMmw7QmO0jeao2i/XPWlMdyrJFDwDBO6dRPl/R5RazEOoWmYRNLWqtT
OjPLopwdLy8+V+zYe0HF8IrM7hTc0yxDMkPO6S8Zjktx+NhNv69qwE5bV8E2ziUu
//9k2TKjeRmtphFUalHBbQJfYq7/59Ovf1T40zuK2KfQi/eWvwPe5LZYzK9OHZMx
YBH7C7JbiHmlBrIJ/xKlYRHpWR8VP9GWRNL+RTt6Ou18ipHim5ZN7E4Wi6Kl+T4=
=eiae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From wendy  Tue Apr  2 22:58:46 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:58:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <515B3876.5080803@seltzer.com>

Thanks for getting this started.

Can we call for concrete action, such as reversing the decision?

--Wendy

On 04/02/2013 09:33 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing GNSO
> Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light and doesn't
> touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and TMCH. Robin suggested we
> try and prompt discussion on the TMCH, so here's a draft motion I could
> propose - VERY happy to take re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it
> today, April 2nd.
> 
> Cheers, Maria
> 
> 
> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent
> adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH "Strawman
> Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO stakeholders and developed in
> an un-transparent manner by a numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN
> stakeholders. The significant expansion by staff of rights protection
> mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy
> process of the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an
> unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. The
> GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the CEO to the
> Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January 2013 that the process
> of developing these further rights protection mechanisms was procedurally
> flawed and did not meet ICANN's standards of transparency and
> accountability. The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN
> staff and a small number of stakeholders to circumvent the established,
> transparent and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of
> the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more
> generally."
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
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 joy  Tue Apr  2 23:03:59 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:03:59 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <515B3876.5080803@seltzer.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAJSkYg33ruqs8x3BTj6YROaBUmvAOUEz2TmEGuS2b_bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<515B3876.5080803@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <515B39AF.9080403@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1
Joy

On 3/04/2013 8:58 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Thanks for getting this started.
> 
> Can we call for concrete action, such as reversing the decision?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 04/02/2013 09:33 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing
>> GNSO Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light
>> and doesn't touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and
>> TMCH. Robin suggested we try and prompt discussion on the TMCH,
>> so here's a draft motion I could propose - VERY happy to take
>> re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it today, April 2nd.
>> 
>> Cheers, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the
>> recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH
>> "Strawman Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO
>> stakeholders and developed in an un-transparent manner by a
>> numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN stakeholders. The
>> significant expansion by staff of rights protection mechanisms in
>> the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy process of
>> the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an 
>> unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN
>> staff. The GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the
>> CEO to the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January
>> 2013 that the process of developing these further rights
>> protection mechanisms was procedurally flawed and did not meet
>> ICANN's standards of transparency and accountability. The GNSO
>> Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN staff and a small
>> number of stakeholders to circumvent the established, transparent
>> and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of 
>> the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder
>> model more generally."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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 Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWzmuAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqdRcH+well/6zeQxyZl+DJpF5//OP
KKxGeRa+PnJHdvLCNeAAhe9XN3g7Kbck+xhF3+obOR2fEYUGSwUP6OHxT1rxH8MI
82y00zN649+wF+eGmqwNwNW23z+bMqRHespwLNV6VhY65RecuDidVvZ0k289mQD5
igiYDvLwv3tnMVnS97wouSs83k7LcYLfjOX99BazCBLtQ/na60calHXPi7NNNt4L
/7z3fCQXPMp3WQapv9p7yWlwmD7sq/Q9LCqwwAmUSdEpPf3oMCSwqGkA6H0YzK92
sf9JWmSMHfo2i9+oPbqYAbAC3d4Rf9Ssf7NOBZ2GPXFvS1WVRd5Oln2/5nx1r7Q=
=lqEK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From maria.farrell  Wed Apr  3 01:42:59 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:42:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FYI proposed motion on TMCH / RA/RAA executive action
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdDHZ5bN9NGMpd-k34TpaN6OWPsc4mo4_Z-kwMDWZxbJEg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

FYI here is the text of a proposed motion I have submitted for the Beijing
GNSO Council meeting:

"The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent
adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing
House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed genesis and the
strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant
portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection
mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes
of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear
determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent
substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational
implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making
function by ICANN staff.

The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the
established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a
top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's
bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.

As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and
unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive
justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of
this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman
Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder
model.

The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed
course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the
extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50
additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been
approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of
their implications."

All the best, Maria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/4f33ec29/attachment.html>


From wendy  Wed Apr  3 01:46:00 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:46:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FYI proposed motion on TMCH / RA/RAA executive action
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdDHZ5bN9NGMpd-k34TpaN6OWPsc4mo4_Z-kwMDWZxbJEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdDHZ5bN9NGMpd-k34TpaN6OWPsc4mo4_Z-kwMDWZxbJEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <515B5FA8.8040009@seltzer.com>

Thanks, Maria!

--Wendy

On 04/02/2013 06:42 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> FYI here is the text of a proposed motion I have submitted for the Beijing
> GNSO Council meeting:
> 
> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent
> adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing
> House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed genesis and the
> strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant
> portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection
> mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes
> of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear
> determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent
> substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational
> implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making
> function by ICANN staff.
> 
> The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the
> established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a
> top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's
> bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.
> 
> As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and
> unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive
> justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of
> this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman
> Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder
> model.
> 
> The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed
> course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the
> extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50
> additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been
> approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of
> their implications."
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
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 wendy  Wed Apr  3 03:32:39 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:32:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
In-Reply-To: <515B777F.9000306@seltzer.com>
References: <515B777F.9000306@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <515B78A7.3020008@seltzer.com>

Thinking it was important to get the RAA issue on the Council's formal
agenda, I sent a quick motion that can be fleshed out or substituted.

--Wendy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:27:43 -0400
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>


I'd like to propose the following motion for the Beijing meeting
(resending from the correct address):

Whereas the most recently posted draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement
(RAA) has raised serious concerns of policy among most of the
stakeholder groups in the GNSO [see Minutes of March call];

Whereas ICANN negotiators have held it out as a blocker to the
implementation of the New gTLD Program;

Resolved, Council recommends that ICANN permit Registrars to extend the
rights and obligations in the current RAA and its renewals to new gTLDs
until such time as the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy
changes in any proposed new RAA.

Thanks,
--Wendy

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
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 robin  Wed Apr  3 04:26:00 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:26:00 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
In-Reply-To: <515B78A7.3020008@seltzer.com>
References: <515B777F.9000306@seltzer.com> <515B78A7.3020008@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <8F4B28EA-49DD-4E91-BBF9-218A10440B1D@ipjustice.org>

That's great news, Wendy, thank you very much!

Best,
Robin


On Apr 2, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Thinking it was important to get the RAA issue on the Council's formal
> agenda, I sent a quick motion that can be fleshed out or substituted.
>
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:27:43 -0400
> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> I'd like to propose the following motion for the Beijing meeting
> (resending from the correct address):
>
> Whereas the most recently posted draft Registrar Accreditation  
> Agreement
> (RAA) has raised serious concerns of policy among most of the
> stakeholder groups in the GNSO [see Minutes of March call];
>
> Whereas ICANN negotiators have held it out as a blocker to the
> implementation of the New gTLD Program;
>
> Resolved, Council recommends that ICANN permit Registrars to extend  
> the
> rights and obligations in the current RAA and its renewals to new  
> gTLDs
> until such time as the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy
> changes in any proposed new RAA.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/aaf163f0/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Apr  3 06:28:43 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:28:43 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Milton will serve as GNSO Councilor (Temporary Alternate)
	in Beijing
Message-ID: <A387224E-E42A-4490-AABE-5B57D99BE781@ipjustice.org>

Due to visa timing issues, it turns out that Amr won't be able to  
make it to Beijing to fill-in for Maria despite enormous effort on  
his part.  Therefore Milton Mueller has agreed to fill-in for Maria  
instead during the GNSO Council Meeting in Beijing, so we won't be a  
representative short during the meeting.

Thanks to Amr for trying to get to Beijing and for being willing to  
substitute for Maria there.  And also thanks to Milton to agreeing to  
fill-in for Maria at this point.

Thanks,
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130402/a19ac3c3/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Wed Apr  3 10:47:31 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:47:31 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
In-Reply-To: <515B78A7.3020008@seltzer.com>
References: <515B777F.9000306@seltzer.com> <515B78A7.3020008@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <2A161711-9136-4469-99F5-E15851D506F7@isoc.be>

+1

Rudi Vansnick

Op 3-apr-2013, om 02:32 heeft Wendy Seltzer het volgende geschreven:

> Thinking it was important to get the RAA issue on the Council's formal
> agenda, I sent a quick motion that can be fleshed out or substituted.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:27:43 -0400
> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> I'd like to propose the following motion for the Beijing meeting
> (resending from the correct address):
> 
> Whereas the most recently posted draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> (RAA) has raised serious concerns of policy among most of the
> stakeholder groups in the GNSO [see Minutes of March call];
> 
> Whereas ICANN negotiators have held it out as a blocker to the
> implementation of the New gTLD Program;
> 
> Resolved, Council recommends that ICANN permit Registrars to extend the
> rights and obligations in the current RAA and its renewals to new gTLDs
> until such time as the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy
> changes in any proposed new RAA.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130403/23ebe879/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Thu Apr  4 01:56:54 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:56:54 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from
 Wendy, Joy and me?
In-Reply-To: <6BC47D90-4A1D-4739-B3C1-D0C835BBF5BD@isoc.be>
References: <5A603314-E2A2-4281-86A1-CBB88E695F7B@ipjustice.org>
	<6BC47D90-4A1D-4739-B3C1-D0C835BBF5BD@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <515CB3B6.9040402@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

thanks Rudi - I would just point out that there are some ccTLDs that
have a higher bar of service and standards than some registrars and
registries and for that (and other) reasons they would actively resist
having the RAA applied to them. perhaps we could ask them about this
at one of our joint ccNSO sessions...
Joy

On 2/04/2013 9:22 p.m., Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> I agree too ...
> 
> And as said during last conf call, the RAA should have a broader
> range, also affecting the registries in the ccTLD world. Many
> problems are due to the fact the RAA is not applicable on "ccTLD -
> registrars".
> 
> Rudi Vansnick
> 
> Op 2-apr-2013, om 07:14 heeft Robin Gross het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement
>> during the present Reply comment period?
>> 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
>>
>>
>> 
In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
>> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In
>> doing so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to
>> keep our interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and
>> members of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not
>> believe the latest proposed Registrar Accreditation Agreement
>> (RAA) does so. As such, it does not reflect good public policy.
>> 
>> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult
>> issues are resolved through consensus driven by participation
>> and representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board
>> acting without (or against) such guidance. The consensus process
>> carefully insulates the Board from many decisions -- its
>> governance is in making sure the right procedural steps are
>> followed, not by overturning that process to intervene on the
>> substance of contested questions.
>> 
>> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board
>> into disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan
>> interests. Curtailing their power actually protects their ability
>> to oversee the interests of all of the stakeholders.
>> 
>> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual
>> negotiations are not the place to set policy for a
>> multi-stakeholder environment. The unilateral decision-making in
>> this foundational agreement undermines our ability to advocate
>> for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model in other
>> fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks. To
>> create a single point of unilateral decision-making,
>> particularly when no clear case for this has been made, is
>> contrary to this very basic and profoundly important
>> architectural feature.
>> 
>> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
>> 
>> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and
>> without legal basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem
>> necessitating this solution; no persuasive rationale has been
>> presented and in any event, any such evidence/rationale must be
>> subject to community input.
>> 
>> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives
>> feeble rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable)
>> responsibilities. It should not have been tabled without input
>> from community and especially across community constituencies.
>> Registrants rights are a foundational aspect of the RFCs which
>> guide the DNS.  To purport to define these without community
>> input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the very rights
>> the proposal seeks to assert.
>> 
>> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy
>> registration providers, along with new data collection and
>> retention demands, has come under much criticism -- it is vital
>> that human rights implications of such changes be taken into
>> account. For example, should a lawyer registering domains on
>> behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client privilege, be
>> forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend on mere
>> promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be 
>> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account 
>> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom
>> of expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is
>> inappropriate at this stage.
>> 
>> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain 
>> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online
>> speech depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs
>> not subject to this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to
>> get these names, registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance
>> of an uncomfortable exercise of free expression rights.
>> 
>> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed
>> RAA amendments.
>> 
>> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRXLO2AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqaKEIALhFsIWdX/ArA9NuK3Dxt81+
4EgAmYSDKGBNmS5J+fRXuYMH+0jvJ6FjpQNMg3C56XMCWZCto2JAaB2B4PI5Zl/M
cAY1ud+5Xdb+8z7JPTRO1U3GeC9gTMeM1kYlo6b0yIDumcuSQekDMp0jHJakPfNd
uubmW1Cq/3jaAObgjlDnPaD5U5CNgRsRgB46fldtnQN2OSfWjyE42OHaUvRp4bOn
jajng/Ptb7XjtWSRybDZCfg6MulEezZvd28xP1zL8yo4K9tQocEdczIn5DfGgz3s
rv16Vu9vbXcTyYPJik4nYqLinoM95+wKImhzm8dwHxQ8iGOJgxlh62VD0Z4pRUA=
=prxY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From avri  Sun Apr  7 15:17:08 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:17:08 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Input requested by GNSO Standing
	Committee on	Improvements
Message-ID: <4a050ab2-3dd7-4573-a741-7d31048023b4@email.android.com>

Hi,

This goes for the NCSG too.

Thanks Mary
Thanks



-------- Original Message --------
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Sun Apr 07 17:52:22 CST (China) 2013
To: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Input requested by GNSO Standing Committee on	Improvements


Dear NCUC members, 

I'm resending the email below, as the Standing Committee on Improvements (SCI) would like to complete its work on this issue and send its recommendation on to the GNSO Council for their approval. Please let me know if you have comments or questions by 21 April. Thanks! 

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


>>> 


From:  
Mary Wong 

To: 
NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu 

Date:  
3/20/2013 11:47 PM 

Subject:  
Input requested by GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements 

Hi all - I thought I had sent the request below but cannot seem to locate it so I apologize if I did not. The GNSO's Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (SCI) is requesting SG and constituency feedback on a proposal for dealing with whether, when and how a motion may be re-submitted for re-voting to the GNSO Council. The proposal follows, as does a brief explanation of why this is an issue. 


Alternative #1.  Leave up to discretion of the Chair 

OR

Alternative #2.  Comply with ALL the following criteria, in this order: 



(1)  Re-submitting Councilor must provide reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion, no later than the usual deadline for submitting an original motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting. 

(2)  The text of the re-submitted motion must be published, no later than the usual deadline for submitting an original motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council meeting. 

(3)  The re-submitted motion must have a seconder from each house as a prerequisite for placing the issue of whether the Council will even accept a re-submission on the consent agenda at the next GNSO Council meeting. 

(4)  Any Councilor can ask for the acceptance of re-submission to be taken off the consent agenda -- in which case the question whether or not the re-submission should even be accepted goes automatically to a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission.NOTE: all this is just to decide if the act of re-submission itself is accepted -- the actual substance of the motion does not get discussed, or put to a vote, until such acceptance has taken place.CONTEXT:At a recent Council meeting, a motion was voted on and defeated because two Councilors abstained without realizing that an abstention under the GNSO Council rules is automatically deemed to be a No vote. The question then became whether the motion could be re-submitted and re-voted on, at which point it became clear that the GNSO Council rules and procedures do NOT currently have a process in place to deal with the question. The SCI was therefore asked to look at the issue and recommend such a process.Thanks and chee!
 rsMary 


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


 


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

~~~
avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130407/0fe2e3bc/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Apr  8 21:06:09 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:06:09 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG meetings page - please know and check this page. it
	is the definitive source.
Message-ID: <4305B678-9D39-4719-9A5B-7DB15135C5BB@ipjustice.org>

NCSG wiki meetings page:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG 
+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting



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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130408/2a70d880/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Apr  9 07:38:25 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:38:25 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
References: <CAMguqh1jATUWAcfpHaF8ky6mzw1VMd1wAS2BRsXSLy+M+Yv-Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <69351CEA-13E1-46E4-8EBC-1F9CFBA84E6D@ipjustice.org>




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Date: April 9, 2013 12:16:42 PM GMT+08:00
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>,  Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> Subject: Re: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
> 

> I generally support Alan's comments and proposed mods. One difference below.
> 
> >  I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings per unique mark and not per each registration of the same mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
> 
> IMO, the "+50" proposal was something that was never even suggested at the LA meeting (that I recall) and indeed_appears_ to have been pulled out of thin air. So it is reasonable for the statement to comment on both the process problem as well as this (+50) as an example of a poor and unexpected outcome that resulted from the problem. I'm not myself a fan of +50 as an answer to the legitimate "strings contained" concern advanced by brand owners and would likely not support it if raised at ALAC.
> 
> Had this (+50) been raised in advance with the community, even if interpreted as implementation and discussed in a more lightweight process than a PDP, a better outcome would have resulted. IMO
> 
> -Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130409/3d8dcc1d/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Apr  9 13:06:04 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:06:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and
 Responsibilities -- for review/approval
Message-ID: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>

We heard again in the Board-GAC meeting that the RAA is near final. As
discussed on the NCUC and NCSG lists, I propose that we send this
statement to the Board, if possible, before we leave Beijing.

--Wendy

Dear Steve and Fadi,

The latest Draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes reference to a
 "Registrants? Rights and Responsibilities Specification,"
 https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
As drafted, that document is insufficient, short-changing the real
rights domain name registrants expect.

Registrants of domain names depend on the DNS to provide stable online
location-pointers for their speech, association, commercial, and
non-commercial activites. They derive rights and responsibilities from
applicable law as well as from the web of ICANN-based contracts. As a
matter of policy, ICANN should ensure that its contracts can support a
wide range of lawful and innovative end-user activities and free
communications.

Accordingly, we propose this positive statement of Registrants' Rights
and Responsibilities:

Registrants have the right to:
* reliable neutral resolution of registered domain names
* no suspension or termination of registration without due process
* privacy in the provision and display of registration data (registrant
information should be private by default)
* fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
registries or registrars
* timely transfer of registered domain names between registrars
* renewal (or choice not to renew) of domain name registrations on
clearly disclosed terms
and to accomplish that,
* to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
information

Registrants have the responsibilities:
* to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
registrar to suspend registration upon an unresponded-to allegation of abuse
* not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
* not to cybersquat, as defined in the UDRP



From kleiman  Wed Apr 10 00:31:16 2013
From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:31:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and
 Responsibilities -- for review/approval
In-Reply-To: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
References: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <d71dbdbfe07a4e62b9719c839df2d949@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Outstanding. I think this should go in as soon as possible!
________________________________________
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:06 AM
To: NCSG-Policy Policy
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities -- for review/approval

We heard again in the Board-GAC meeting that the RAA is near final. As
discussed on the NCUC and NCSG lists, I propose that we send this
statement to the Board, if possible, before we leave Beijing.

--Wendy

Dear Steve and Fadi,

The latest Draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes reference to a
 "Registrants? Rights and Responsibilities Specification,"
 https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
As drafted, that document is insufficient, short-changing the real
rights domain name registrants expect.

Registrants of domain names depend on the DNS to provide stable online
location-pointers for their speech, association, commercial, and
non-commercial activites. They derive rights and responsibilities from
applicable law as well as from the web of ICANN-based contracts. As a
matter of policy, ICANN should ensure that its contracts can support a
wide range of lawful and innovative end-user activities and free
communications.

Accordingly, we propose this positive statement of Registrants' Rights
and Responsibilities:

Registrants have the right to:
* reliable neutral resolution of registered domain names
* no suspension or termination of registration without due process
* privacy in the provision and display of registration data (registrant
information should be private by default)
* fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
registries or registrars
* timely transfer of registered domain names between registrars
* renewal (or choice not to renew) of domain name registrations on
clearly disclosed terms
and to accomplish that,
* to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
information

Registrants have the responsibilities:
* to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
registrar to suspend registration upon an unresponded-to allegation of abuse
* not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
* not to cybersquat, as defined in the UDRP

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





From robin  Wed Apr 10 00:52:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:52:35 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and
	Responsibilities -- for review/approval
In-Reply-To: <d71dbdbfe07a4e62b9719c839df2d949@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
	<d71dbdbfe07a4e62b9719c839df2d949@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <BA9E55AE-4CE5-4BC7-BC41-0E7AF8B15E5C@ipjustice.org>

Yes this is great.  Thank you Wendy!

Robin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 5:31 AM, Kathryn Kleiman <kleiman at fhhlaw.com> wrote:

> Outstanding. I think this should go in as soon as possible!
> ________________________________________
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:06 AM
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities -- for review/approval
> 
> We heard again in the Board-GAC meeting that the RAA is near final. As
> discussed on the NCUC and NCSG lists, I propose that we send this
> statement to the Board, if possible, before we leave Beijing.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> Dear Steve and Fadi,
> 
> The latest Draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes reference to a
> "Registrants? Rights and Responsibilities Specification,"
> https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
> As drafted, that document is insufficient, short-changing the real
> rights domain name registrants expect.
> 
> Registrants of domain names depend on the DNS to provide stable online
> location-pointers for their speech, association, commercial, and
> non-commercial activites. They derive rights and responsibilities from
> applicable law as well as from the web of ICANN-based contracts. As a
> matter of policy, ICANN should ensure that its contracts can support a
> wide range of lawful and innovative end-user activities and free
> communications.
> 
> Accordingly, we propose this positive statement of Registrants' Rights
> and Responsibilities:
> 
> Registrants have the right to:
> * reliable neutral resolution of registered domain names
> * no suspension or termination of registration without due process
> * privacy in the provision and display of registration data (registrant
> information should be private by default)
> * fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
> no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
> registries or registrars
> * timely transfer of registered domain names between registrars
> * renewal (or choice not to renew) of domain name registrations on
> clearly disclosed terms
> and to accomplish that,
> * to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
> information
> 
> Registrants have the responsibilities:
> * to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
> registrar to suspend registration upon an unresponded-to allegation of abuse
> * not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
> specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
> distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
> * not to cybersquat, as defined in the UDRP
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Apr 10 16:36:57 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:36:57 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>

Alan,

I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is unfortunate  
that you don't seem willing to re-examine the position you encouraged  
ALAC to previously adopt in light of the serious substantive problems  
with this proposal that have come to light since it was developed.

Thanks,
Robin


On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint statement.   
>> Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.  Let's get a  
>> statement on this important issue.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the  
>> creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new  
>> gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would not create or  
>> alter community-developed policy, this proposal was adopted  
>> outside of the appropriate policy development process and goes  
>> well beyond implementation details and creates entirely new policy  
>> out of whole cloth.
>
> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal was  
> deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement. That is  
> not the position that the ALAC has taken. The following text in my  
> mind would be acceptable.
>
> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the  
> creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new  
> gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that  
> staff would not create or alter community-developed policy, some  
> aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate  
> policy development processes.
>
>
>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the  
>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners  
>> to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each  
>> trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering the receipt of an  
>> infringement warning notice to registrants.   Since big companies  
>> file for trademark registrations in many countries, and each  
>> country's registration will entitle them to another 50 additional  
>> derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of words per  
>> trademark can actually trigger the warning notice for a single  
>> trademark of a large company.  This proposal presents a chilling  
>> effect on speech as some registrants will be intimidated about  
>> going forward with the registration even though they would be  
>> using that word lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of  
>> these warning notices is legally significant as it will trigger  
>> criminal penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully  
>> in the registration of a domain but are later determined to been  
>> in violation.
>
> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in fact  
> is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC would want to  
> disavow such statements now, but that is not something that this  
> small drafting group has the mandate to do. I believe however, that  
> the ALAC would support (but would need formal approval) to limit  
> the extensions to 50 strings per unique mark and not per each  
> registration of the same mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has  
> objected to the PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>
>
>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular  
>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the  
>> explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO  
>> Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO  
>> development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the  
>> bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and  
>> redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the  
>> community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development  
>> process that ICANN claims to champion.
>
> I added some words in Blue.
>
> Alan




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/1c274042/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 10 18:23:43 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:23:43 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] memory refreshment on telling you circumventing community
	consensus policy was wrong
References: <F6A5E728-1D47-47C6-9FBC-1AC4930D4E3F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <914259F5-D3A9-40F5-938C-B40D90F57297@ipjustice.org>

Dear Fadi,

Since you told the GNSO Council on Sunday that no one had ever told  
you it would be wrong for you to do an end run around community  
consensus policy by going forward with the TMCH meetings in Brussels  
(and then LA), I thought I should refresh your memory of at least 2  
people who told you that what you were setting out to do was wrong: a  
Stakeholder Group Chair and a Constituency Chair.  Please see the  
emails below from myself and Bill Drake warning you about this to  
refresh your memory.

Because you told the GNSO Council that no one told you it was wrong,  
I request that my and Bill's emails below should also be forwarded to  
the GNSO Council to tell our side of the story.

Thank you,
Robin Gross

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: October 26, 2012 5:11:14 PM PDT
> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>
> Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: Re: why holding the meeting in Brussels next week to  
> consider unraveling community consensus policy is a really bad idea  
> for ICANN
>
> Dear Fadi,
>
> Thank you for responding to Bill since much of what you say below  
> is exactly the kind of clarification that I am asking for regarding  
> this Brussels meeting.
>
> I am extremely grateful to your commitment to uphold the proper  
> development process and your commitment that the meeting will not  
> re-open previously negotiated GNSO policy.  However it is also  
> important to understand that by "reviewing the IPC/BC proposal",  
> the meeting *is* considering re-opening matters that were decided  
> by the GNSO in the STI.  So while you may have no intention of over- 
> riding GNSO-approved policy, that is what several of the points of  
> IPC/BC's proposal ask for and apparently it is on the agenda.
>
> Furthermore, every person I have spoken with who knew about this  
> meeting has stated a different understanding of its purpose,  
> another reason a clarification from you to the community would be  
> appropriate.  One participant said his understanding was it was to  
> "deal with only TMCH issues," another said it was only "an  
> educational opportunity for ICANN staff to better understand how  
> the technology and encryption work".  When you and I spoke, you  
> said it was "resolve IPR and new gtld issues and hammer out a  
> framework for a solution".    I understand that the IPC/BC are busy  
> working now in 3 different working groups this week to develop new  
> proposals to present to you next week on matters beyond technical  
> or implementation details, and on both TMCH and URS.  Several of  
> these proposals have already been rejected by the community, but be  
> prepared to see them again next week, when NCSG can't be there.
>
> Once this meeting was scheduled, even if only originally for  
> technical implementation white boarding, certain constituencies  
> have seized upon it as an opportunity to hit you with new demands  
> at a time when NCSG will not be there to present the other side of  
> the argument.  Without clear parameters placed around this meeting,  
> aggressive lobbyists will use it accordingly, despite the  
> intentions behind the originator that it not turn into a lobby  
> session.
>
> When you say you were inviting the "impacted constituencies" to  
> Brussels, please understand that non-commercial users are every bit  
> as impacted by these rules as the IPC.  These rights are two sides  
> of the same coin, and when you give more rights to the IPC, you are  
> taking them away from the general public including noncommercial  
> users -- and a balance must be struck in that bargain.  NCSG is  
> every bit as impacted as IPC on the implementation of these rules  
> and should have equal participation rights in the discussion as  
> commercial users.
>
> Unlike the CSG, NCSG operates on a SG-wide basis on policy  
> matters.  It is explicitly stated in the NCSG Charter that policy  
> positions are taken by the NCSG Policy Committee, not individual  
> constituencies within the NCSG.  So the NCSG Policy Committee is  
> the proper venue to take policy proposals (such as the IPC-BC  
> proposal) to for consideration in the NCSG.  I know CSG operates  
> based on constituencies, but NCSG develops policy positions on a SG- 
> level so that difference should be factored in to how one  
> approaches NCSG on policy.
>
> Unfortunately no one in the CSG shared the IPC-BC's proposals with  
> the NCSG Policy Committee, or with the NCUC, and I haven't seen any  
> discussion of it on the NPOC mailing list either, so any CSG  
> commitments to socialize their proposal with the rest of the GNSO  
> are missing some gigantic holes.  NCSG only knows about it because  
> you called to tell me about the Brussels meeting and the related 8- 
> point demand letter a couple days ago.  Now we are scrambling to  
> respond and will file a formal response early next week, but the  
> community was circumvented and has yet to be approached by the  
> proponents of last week's proposals.
>
> It is unfortunate the Brussels meeting is happening without a  
> balance of participation from all of the impacted stake-holders.   
> And NCSG definitely will take you up on your offer to meet with us  
> separately about these issues and we agree it is only appropriate  
> for an 'equal time meeting' given these circumstances.  We can hold  
> your meeting with NCSG in the US, perhaps a couple weeks after  
> after the Brussels meeting? (as soon as possible, but with many  
> people in Baku I know that will be difficult).
>
> I understand that you are not knowingly going into the Brussels  
> meeting intending to change GNSO Policy, but others will, so I hope  
> you will prepare accordingly, including make a clear announcement  
> in advance that changing GNSO-approved-policy is not on the table  
> for Brussels.
>
> Of course I'm available to discuss this matter further at any time  
> and look forward to scheduling the "equal time meeting" for NCSG at  
> your earliest opportunity.  Thank you very much.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Fadi Chehade wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Good to hear from you. I truly appreciate your comments. Let me  
>> clarify.
>>
>> 1. I am the one who called for the meeting. No one lobbied me on  
>> this matter. I received a high-level briefing on complex issues  
>> and realized I needed to learn more.
>>
>> 2. This is intended to be an informal white board brainstorming  
>> session to generate new thinking that advances TMCH discussions.  
>> The aim is to generate straw man proposals that can be shared with  
>> the broader community for discussion and consideration.
>>
>> 3. The session will include the following items (accorded equal  
>> time/focus):
>> ?	Design implementation solution for trademark registration
>> ?	Design implementation solution for trademark sunrise management
>> ?	Design implementation solution for trademark claims management
>> ?	Review IPC/BC proposal
>> ?	Review framework for contract with the Clearinghouse providers  
>> with the parties in direct operation with the Clearinghouse. The  
>> contract will be publicly posted.
>>
>> 4. Given the informality of the session, I asked representatives  
>> of the constituencies directly impacted with the implementation  
>> and contractual implications of the Clearinghouse to help me  
>> develop a proposal.
>>
>> 5. I am personally facilitating the white board discussion (partly  
>> to learn and partly to birth a solution design rapidly).
>>
>> 6. On the issue of the RPMs: I wish to assure you that I am  
>> extremely respectful of the policy process and I will not come  
>> back with a solution that undermines the multi-stakeholder  
>> consensus without following proper process.  This is my personal  
>> commitment to you and to our great community that has labored very  
>> hard to reach this point.
>>
>> 7. The new requests from the IPC/BC constituencies have been made  
>> public and I wanted to better understand them - so I used the  
>> opportunity we were all together to hear them out. I also  
>> personally contacted Robin on Skype to invite someone from your  
>> constituency on this item of the agenda -- so your community can  
>> participate initially and, more importantly, prepare for the  
>> public discussion on the matter. Given that the IPC/BC proposal  
>> discussion will only occupy a 1/5 of our two days (3 hours), i  
>> suggested that your representative can join via video-link from  
>> the ICANN office or Skype. Accommodation of time zones is always  
>> difficult and the arrival of certain parties is dictating the  
>> agenda timing but we will do our best to accommodate time zones of  
>> remote participants.  I also offered Robin that if you all wished  
>> to meet with me first to share your views without the other  
>> stakeholders present, that I would be happy to take the time.
>>
>> I hope the above helps clarify my intent and assure you that your  
>> input below was helpful and appreciated.  I am here at your  
>> service to make this a success.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Fadi
>>
>> p.s. if helpful, you are welcome to share my clarifications with  
>> your colleagues.
>>
>>
>> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:42 AM
>> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>
>> Cc: "Gross, Robin" <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Kabob] why holding the meeting in Brussels next week  
>> to consider unraveling community consensus policy is a really bad  
>> idea for ICANN
>>
>> Hello Fadi
>>
>> I couldn't agree more with Robin's message.  The repeatedly  
>> demonstrated penchant of powerful stakeholders to do end runs  
>> around the consensus based community processes whenever they don't  
>> get their maximum preferred outcomes has been one of the most  
>> sustained and pernicious threats to the multi-equal stakeholder  
>> model you champion.  People who have issues should bring these  
>> back to the community processes from which they came, rather than  
>> undermine collective trust internally and leave ICANN (rightfully)  
>> open to all kinds of accusations externally.  I believe the  
>> correct way to deal with such ploys would be to simply turn down  
>> requests for such meetings and ask for written inputs to which the  
>> community can respond asynchronously and in full.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Fadi,
>>>
>>> Thank you for informing me of a possible meeting in Brussels next  
>>> week to consider re-opening the issues related to trademark  
>>> protections for new gtlds that were previously agreed to by the  
>>> entire community.   However, NCSG is extremely concerned about  
>>> the proposed Brussels meeting and I don't believe any compromise  
>>> hammered out in Brussels next week will withstand any serious  
>>> public scrutiny.
>>>
>>> Surely we learned something from the bad IRT experience and won't  
>>> repeat it in Brussels next week with a one-sided, hastily thrown  
>>> together at the last minute meeting to unravel years of  
>>> negotiated compromise from many communities, and all to please a  
>>> single interest.  Changes proposed by the BC and IPC include big  
>>> substantive changes to existing policy, not purely minor  
>>> implementation details.   It would be a huge mistake for ICANN to  
>>> go ahead with the Brussels meeting next week and subject ICANN to  
>>> criticism that GNSO policy is again thrown-out by last-minute,  
>>> end-run lobbying by the strongest army.
>>>
>>> Even if throwing-out GNSO agreed policy is not a concern, the  
>>> lack of balance among impacted interests of the participants  
>>> allowed to participate in Brussels, is another concern.   
>>> Unbalanced inputs obviously lends to unbalanced outcomes.  I  
>>> understand that at least 4 members of the Intellectual Property  
>>> Constituency plus several more from the Business Constituency  
>>> will be present in the Brussels meeting to advocate for making  
>>> these changes to the Applicant Guidebook.  One single member from  
>>> the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has been invited to  
>>> attend -- that is already an imbalance of at least 7 in the CSG  
>>> to 1 in the NCSG in the make-up of those invited to participate  
>>> in the discussion over the expansion of rights of those 7 against  
>>> that 1.   7 vs. 1 is a long way from equality among  
>>> stakeholders.   The lack of equality of participation in Brussels  
>>> among the interests who negotiated the compromise this meeting is  
>>> set to unravel is untenable.
>>>
>>> And realistically, without travel support from ICANN, no members  
>>> of the NCSG will be able to fly to Brussels next week to engage  
>>> in these negotiations to re-work the rights of all registrants.   
>>> Unlike the CSG which advocates for commercial industries, NCSG  
>>> does not have any industry support that will fly NCSG members  
>>> around the world to represent the rights of noncommercial users  
>>> in ICANN policy.  NCSG is, by definition, non-industry  
>>> considerations of policy matters, so cannot match participation  
>>> levels of enormous industries with huge budgets.  NCSG's budget  
>>> is $0 and always has been.  No one pays for the public interest  
>>> perspective to be at the table.  Although NCSG represents the  
>>> interests of all non-commercial users of the Internet, which is  
>>> everyone at one moment or another of the day, these  
>>> considerations won't make their way into the final policy because  
>>> participation is prohibitively expensive for the noncommercial  
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> It is theoretically possible for someone from NCSG - on the other  
>>> side of the world from Brussels - to join the meeting via a  
>>> remote link in the middle of their night in their pajamas, but it  
>>> is not possible to be effective when your body is in the middle  
>>> of its night.  You've worked at your real job all day and will  
>>> have to again tomorrow.  How to really participate in a meeting  
>>> in the middle of the night?   We can't.  Not in a meaningful  
>>> way.  Thus there will be no meaningful participation by even a  
>>> single NCSG member to represent the views of 1/4 of the GNSO -  
>>> the part that represents the public interest in ICANN policy.
>>>
>>> Without any meaningful representation from the public interest,  
>>> or the rights of registrants, or the rights of nom-commercial  
>>> users, this meeting is entirely one-sided and will be guaranteed  
>>> to produce a one-sided result.
>>>
>>> NCSG members have expressed concern to me over the lack of any  
>>> kind of public announcement of this meeting by ICANN so they  
>>> don't know if they can talk about it publicly and begin to get  
>>> the public engaged in the discussion.  How can we be considering  
>>> holding a meeting to decide if we throw out years of hard fought  
>>> compromises without a public announcement that there will be such  
>>> a meeting and explaining its purpose and who is invited to  
>>> participate?  It is important for ICANN's commitment to  
>>> transparency that the public be informed of this proposed  
>>> discussion and its importance to the new gtld process and allowed  
>>> to react.
>>>
>>> NCSG members are concerned about the lack of clear purpose for  
>>> this Brussels meeting - what is the agenda and what on the table  
>>> for discussion?  Is a chance to re-argue old policy battles?  The  
>>> GNSO makes policy recommendations.  Not a group of trademark  
>>> attorneys lobbying staff in such a way that no other voice will  
>>> be heard, ensuring that the GNSO's policy recommendations will be  
>>> cast aside.  The entire GNSO unanimously approved the trademark  
>>> recommendations in the STI Report - including the BC and IPC.   
>>> All sectors of the community participated in those working groups  
>>> and hammered out those compromises.  Everyone lost something -  
>>> that is supposed to be the nature of compromise.  The STI work is  
>>> now regarded as the cross-community poster-child example for how  
>>> to do it right to achieve a community consensus.  We can't throw  
>>> that result out in favor of the disaster IRT model, a one-sided  
>>> effort that produced proposals the community soundly rejected and  
>>> the poster child example for "how NOT to make policy".   Surely  
>>> we have learned from that experience and won't try to reproduce  
>>> it next week!
>>>
>>> Going forward with the Brussels meeting only creates an  
>>> incentive, even rewards those stakeholders who abandon their  
>>> commitments, while punishes those who are willing to honor their  
>>> commitments.  It is so obvious that is a bad path for ICANN to go  
>>> down - even with the enormous pressure of the trademark lobby.   
>>> At some point someone at ICANN has to find the strength to tell  
>>> the trademark industry "enough" to the constant clawing for  
>>> greater and greater rights at the expense of other legitimate  
>>> interests.  Otherwise there will be no end to the lobbying and  
>>> constant manipulations.
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to discussing these issues.  But it shouldn't be  
>>> in Brussels next week in a way that is sure to return a one-sided  
>>> result.  We can hold calls, video meetings, discussions on  
>>> mailing lists, etc to hash-out any truly non-substantive  
>>> implementation details.  But by its exclusionary design, the  
>>> Brussels meeting is sure to produce a one-sided result favoring  
>>> the IPC and excluding the rights of registrants and non- 
>>> commercial interests including the public interest.   It will  
>>> open a Pandora's box, set the precedent to lobby the CEO for  
>>> changes to GNSO-agreed-to policy, and subject ICANN to criticism  
>>> that things haven't really changed as we'd hoped.  Let's learn  
>>> from past mistakes (the IRT) and uphold community-wide consensus  
>>> policies (the STI).  This is a crucial issue for ICANN to get  
>>> right and show it can follow its own rules and processes in the  
>>> face of pressure.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm happy to talk with you further about this proposed  
>>> meeting and will continue to try to find some way to include a  
>>> noncommercial user in it is some way.  I just wanted to share  
>>> with you the initial feedback I've received from members while we  
>>> scramble to react to the IPC/BC proposal.  Thanks again for  
>>> alerting NCSG that this meeting had been proposed for next week,  
>>> but please try to understand why we think it is a bad idea to  
>>> actually hold this meeting in this way at this time.  Thank you.   
>>> Now back to the World Series.
>>>
>>> All 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
>
>
>




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/3e93f64d/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Wed Apr 10 05:18:24 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:18:24 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and
	Responsibilities -- for review/approval
In-Reply-To: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
References: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <7CD57E28-BFC4-45F9-80DA-541A246A5A7F@difference.com.au>

I agree. 

I think the wording of the privacy line will be problematic, if it implies any changes to existing policy (eg what registration data is private? Some is default visible now). 

Regards

David

On 09/04/2013, at 6:06 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> We heard again in the Board-GAC meeting that the RAA is near final. As
> discussed on the NCUC and NCSG lists, I propose that we send this
> statement to the Board, if possible, before we leave Beijing.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> Dear Steve and Fadi,
> 
> The latest Draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes reference to a
> "Registrants? Rights and Responsibilities Specification,"
> https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
> As drafted, that document is insufficient, short-changing the real
> rights domain name registrants expect.
> 
> Registrants of domain names depend on the DNS to provide stable online
> location-pointers for their speech, association, commercial, and
> non-commercial activites. They derive rights and responsibilities from
> applicable law as well as from the web of ICANN-based contracts. As a
> matter of policy, ICANN should ensure that its contracts can support a
> wide range of lawful and innovative end-user activities and free
> communications.
> 
> Accordingly, we propose this positive statement of Registrants' Rights
> and Responsibilities:
> 
> Registrants have the right to:
> * reliable neutral resolution of registered domain names
> * no suspension or termination of registration without due process
> * privacy in the provision and display of registration data (registrant
> information should be private by default)
> * fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
> no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
> registries or registrars
> * timely transfer of registered domain names between registrars
> * renewal (or choice not to renew) of domain name registrations on
> clearly disclosed terms
> and to accomplish that,
> * to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
> information
> 
> Registrants have the responsibilities:
> * to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
> registrar to suspend registration upon an unresponded-to allegation of abuse
> * not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
> specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
> distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
> * not to cybersquat, as defined in the UDRP
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From william.drake  Wed Apr 10 05:52:22 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:52:22 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed statement on Registrants' Rights and
	Responsibilities -- for review/approval
In-Reply-To: <7CD57E28-BFC4-45F9-80DA-541A246A5A7F@difference.com.au>
References: <5163E80C.6080000@seltzer.com>
	<7CD57E28-BFC4-45F9-80DA-541A246A5A7F@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <C91A76E1-44BF-4753-88A2-DD419C916F3F@uzh.ch>

+1 from the peanut gallery

On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:18 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:

> I agree. 
> 
> I think the wording of the privacy line will be problematic, if it implies any changes to existing policy (eg what registration data is private? Some is default visible now). 
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> On 09/04/2013, at 6:06 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> We heard again in the Board-GAC meeting that the RAA is near final. As
>> discussed on the NCUC and NCSG lists, I propose that we send this
>> statement to the Board, if possible, before we leave Beijing.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> Dear Steve and Fadi,
>> 
>> The latest Draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes reference to a
>> "Registrants? Rights and Responsibilities Specification,"
>> https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
>> As drafted, that document is insufficient, short-changing the real
>> rights domain name registrants expect.
>> 
>> Registrants of domain names depend on the DNS to provide stable online
>> location-pointers for their speech, association, commercial, and
>> non-commercial activites. They derive rights and responsibilities from
>> applicable law as well as from the web of ICANN-based contracts. As a
>> matter of policy, ICANN should ensure that its contracts can support a
>> wide range of lawful and innovative end-user activities and free
>> communications.
>> 
>> Accordingly, we propose this positive statement of Registrants' Rights
>> and Responsibilities:
>> 
>> Registrants have the right to:
>> * reliable neutral resolution of registered domain names
>> * no suspension or termination of registration without due process
>> * privacy in the provision and display of registration data (registrant
>> information should be private by default)
>> * fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
>> no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
>> registries or registrars
>> * timely transfer of registered domain names between registrars
>> * renewal (or choice not to renew) of domain name registrations on
>> clearly disclosed terms
>> and to accomplish that,
>> * to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
>> information
>> 
>> Registrants have the responsibilities:
>> * to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
>> registrar to suspend registration upon an unresponded-to allegation of abuse
>> * not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
>> specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
>> distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
>> * not to cybersquat, as defined in the UDRP
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Wed Apr 10 22:12:30 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:12:30 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50
	is a POLICY matter is still on the web
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
Message-ID: <8C2B9CD6-C618-4695-AEF8-5D0AA443264D@ipjustice.org>

We should consider the options to file a request for reconsideration  
with the board and / or an ombudsman complaint against staff for  
violating ICANN's stated policy development process by adopting a  
policy that the GNSO would not support when Fadi asked Council to  
consider it.

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a  
> POLICY matter is still on the web
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of  
> TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff  
> has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO POLICY  
> that it admits is policy and not implementation.
>
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark- 
> clearinghouse-meeti
> ngs/
>
>
>
> A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings
>
> by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012
>
> To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders  
> to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation, we  
> conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked on  
> these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.
>
> We discussed two items:
>
>    1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
>    2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the  
> meeting in Los Angeles.
>
> Contracts
>
> ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database  
> services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to  
> include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum  
> operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark  
> database.
>
> Here is an overview:
>
>     * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the  
> Trademark Clearinghouse data.
>     * Deloitte?s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN  
> may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum  
> stability is met.
>     * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record.  
> Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
>     * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an  
> application processing interface (API), and will charge registries  
> and registrars for real-time access to the database during the  
> sunrise and claims periods.
>     * ICANN may audit Deloitte?s performance (and revenues/costs)  
> to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are  
> reasonable.
>
> We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the  
> agreements will be posted once signed.
>
> The "Strawman Solution"
>
> As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman  
> solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to  
> determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or  
> implementation process. We did not find that any element of the  
> strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO  
> recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal  
> rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally  
> accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However,  
> the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended  
> steps for consideration, as described below.
>
>     * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition  
> of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into  
> the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend  
> specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help  
> address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially  
> in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
>     * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60  
> to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter  
> of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a  
> ?Claims 2? process could also fall into the category of  
> implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for  
> rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and  
> registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period.  
> This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark  
> holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark  
> Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there  
> are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I  
> envision that these fees can be offset when the process is  
> implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for  
> this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and  
> registrars.
>     *
>
>       Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings  
> previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse  
> for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.  
> This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of  
> additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a  
> decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the  
> previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections  
> associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we  
> believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.
>
>       I wrote in the original version of this blog post: ?the  
> inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in  
> the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be  
> considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a  
> limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record.  
> This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights  
> should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names  
> would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or  
> a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account  
> names for which the issues have already been balanced and  
> considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on  
> the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record,  
> involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO  
> Council.? This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the  
> nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>
> I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for  
> guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the  
> strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am  
> also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal  
> from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to  
> address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although  
> this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will  
> be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.
>
> As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants  
> selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank  
> them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements  
> to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new  
> gTLDs.
>
> I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome  
> of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen  
> later this week or next week.
>
> Sincerely,
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/364ca745/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 10 09:43:47 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:43:47 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of Ncsg & alac
References: <cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <08CDAABC-C7AA-4AE0-90C9-8D1C9211C9EF@ipjustice.org>

Folks:

Due to short time, We weren't able to get alac to re-examine it's previous adoption of Alan's view that TM+50 is a good thing to do.  But he did allow them to make a stmnt on the flawed process of the proposal.  So the below text is what he proposes for a joint ncsg-alac Stmt on the issue.   We will ask alac to reconsider the substance of it's official support for TM+50 however in the coming days.

Thanks,
Robin

> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
> 
> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in different jurisdictions.
> 
> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/308a4dcf/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Apr 10 10:42:12 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:42:12 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of Ncsg & alac
In-Reply-To: <08CDAABC-C7AA-4AE0-90C9-8D1C9211C9EF@ipjustice.org>
References: <cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<08CDAABC-C7AA-4AE0-90C9-8D1C9211C9EF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <c532cadc-bae1-423b-943a-3d1914874c8f@email.android.com>

I recommend that we remove the middle paragraph. A joint statement should be about agreement and not get into the disagreements. 

Otherwise it seems like acceptable pablum.

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>Folks:
>
>Due to short time, We weren't able to get alac to re-examine it's
>previous adoption of Alan's view that TM+50 is a good thing to do.  But
>he did allow them to make a stmnt on the flawed process of the
>proposal.  So the below text is what he proposes for a joint ncsg-alac
>Stmt on the issue.   We will ask alac to reconsider the substance of
>it's official support for TM+50 however in the coming days.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the
>creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD  
>rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not
>create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this
>proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development
>processes.
>> 
>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not
>unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark +
>50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50
>derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH.
>However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for
>trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional
>strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in
>potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities
>are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it
>must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting
>additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in
>different jurisdictions.
>> 
>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal
>was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations
>provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not
>support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been
>woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious
>issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to
>reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up
>multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to
>champion.
>> 
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/63c8738a/attachment.html>


From dave  Wed Apr 10 11:00:52 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:00:52 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of Ncsg & alac
In-Reply-To: <c532cadc-bae1-423b-943a-3d1914874c8f@email.android.com>
References: <cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<08CDAABC-C7AA-4AE0-90C9-8D1C9211C9EF@ipjustice.org>
	<c532cadc-bae1-423b-943a-3d1914874c8f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <38482446-C0E7-46B1-A3A2-283A17121011@difference.com.au>

I have similar concerns. The middle paragraph focusses too much on the one identified problem that we definitely agree is a problem. 

On 10/04/2013, at 3:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I recommend that we remove the middle paragraph. A joint statement should be about agreement and not get into the disagreements. 
> 
> Otherwise it seems like acceptable pablum.
> 
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Folks:
> 
> Due to short time, We weren't able to get alac to re-examine it's previous adoption of Alan's view that TM+50 is a good thing to do.  But he did allow them to make a stmnt on the flawed process of the proposal.  So the below text is what he proposes for a joint ncsg-alac Stmt on the issue.   We will ask alac to reconsider the substance of it's official support for TM+50 however in the coming days.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>> 
>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in different jurisdictions.
>> 
>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
>> 
> 
> 
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/9c40408a/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 10 11:15:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:15:28 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <CE53BC6F-A9DE-4B7B-B21F-591F61C7D1E6@ipjustice.org>

Alan,

We don't like the re-worked middle paragraph so let's remove it entirely.

Thanks,
Robin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I have recommended at various times, and are partly strong views that others have had, so I would prefer to take the personification out of this, just as we do not refer to the positions that NCUC or NCSG put forward as "the positions that Robin encouraged them to take".
> 
> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen, Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely contribute. But the bottom line is that we have a very short time and a very packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all sure that the outcome will be very different from what we have said before. That being said, I think that we will have quick closure on the 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry, because the is what we had originally envisioned, even if not stated.
> 
> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if your think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get this out to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it tomorrow morning.
> 
> Alan
> 
> =================
> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
> 
> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in different jurisdictions.
> 
> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
> 
> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Alan,
>> 
>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of the serious substantive problems with this proposal that have come to light since it was developed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.  Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed policy, this proposal was adopted outside of the appropriate policy development process and goes well beyond implementation details and creates entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>> 
>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal was deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement. That is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The following text in my mind would be acceptable.
>>> 
>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering the receipt of an infringement warning notice to registrants.   Since big companies file for trademark registrations in many countries, and each country's registration will entitle them to another 50 additional derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of words per trademark can actually trigger the warning notice for a single trademark of a large company.  This proposal presents a chilling effect on speech as some registrants will be intimidated about going forward with the registration even though they would be using that word lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in the registration of a domain but are later determined to been in violation.
>>> 
>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC would want to disavow such statements now, but that is not something that this small drafting group has the mandate to do. I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings per unique mark and not per each registration of the same mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
>>> 
>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/acb86030/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Wed Apr 10 11:18:00 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:18:00 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <7B3A9B9C-7683-40DE-83A5-C7D3CF8804D1@difference.com.au>

If that is the only language that ALAC feels we can put in on policy problems with the TM+50 itself, we need to make it clearer that that issue is not the focus of our concern, and fixing it does not resolve our issue. If we make it appear that our concerns are focussed on the multiple registration issue, they can announce that they have fixed it in response to community concerns, and declare multistakeholder policy process has occurred. Certainly in NCSG (and the GNSO generally) we think this is one of many potential problems with this - for example, the assumption that an adverse URDP finding indicates an intrinsic problem with the string itself, ignoring product categories, etc. 

If there is so little specifically that we are able to agree on about what we dislike about the outcome, we should concentrate on our shared issues with the process. I'm in favour of removing the middle paragraph, or replacing it.


David



On 10/04/2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I have recommended at various times, and are partly strong views that others have had, so I would prefer to take the personification out of this, just as we do not refer to the positions that NCUC or NCSG put forward as "the positions that Robin encouraged them to take".
> 
> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen, Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely contribute. But the bottom line is that we have a very short time and a very packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all sure that the outcome will be very different from what we have said before. That being said, I think that we will have quick closure on the 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry, because the is what we had originally envisioned, even if not stated.
> 
> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if your think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get this out to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it tomorrow morning.
> 
> Alan
> 
> =================
> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
> 
> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in different jurisdictions.
> 
> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
> 
> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Alan,
>> 
>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of the serious substantive problems with this proposal that have come to light since it was developed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.  Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed policy, this proposal was adopted outside of the appropriate policy development process and goes well beyond implementation details and creates entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>> 
>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal was deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement. That is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The following text in my mind would be acceptable.
>>> 
>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not create or alter community-developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering the receipt of an infringement warning notice to registrants.   Since big companies file for trademark registrations in many countries, and each country's registration will entitle them to another 50 additional derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of words per trademark can actually trigger the warning notice for a single trademark of a large company.  This proposal presents a chilling effect on speech as some registrants will be intimidated about going forward with the registration even though they would be using that word lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in the registration of a domain but are later determined to been in violation.
>>> 
>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC would want to disavow such statements now, but that is not something that this small drafting group has the mandate to do. I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings per unique mark and not per each registration of the same mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to champion.
>>> 
>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/681654f6/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Apr 11 03:41:41 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:41:41 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <06031cf8-2a98-47de-9a1d-ef7117c63d86@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<CE53BC6F-A9DE-4B7B-B21F-591F61C7D1E6@ipjustice.org>
	<06031cf8-2a98-47de-9a1d-ef7117c63d86@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <DA7E1D58-9BD1-45D8-9167-B4F5D3FFDE0E@ipjustice.org>

It didn't flow properly with the 2nd para totally removed.  So I took  
out the problematic part, but left the explanation of what TM+50 is.

Can we go with the following?:

>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the  
>>> creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new  
>>> gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that  
>>> staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some  
>>> aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate  
>>> policy development processes.
>>>
>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are  
>>> unified regarding the the proposal known as "trademark + 50"  
>>> which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50  
>>> derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the  
>>> TMCH.  While we appreciate staff's admission that this particular  
>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the  
>>> explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the  
>>> GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require  
>>> GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of  
>>> the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention  
>>> and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and  
>>> respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy  
>>> development process that ICANN claims to champion.


Thank you,
Robin


On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> In light of this, I will propose the abbreviated version to the  
> ALAC (that is, the 1st and 3rd paragraph only).
>
> In light of the Council discussion that just happened, my  
> inclination is to recommend that we support the statement that I  
> think Jonathan will be making, specifically, that as the gTLD  
> policy body of ICANN, if the Board is to overrule the GNSO, they  
> are owed the courtesy of having a frank and open discussion on the  
> matter prior to finalizing any decision.
>
> Since I cannot predict which way the ALAC will go, I would suggest  
> that you have prepared for the open forum, the two paragraphs  
> mentioned above, as well as a fuller NCSG statement (recalling that  
> I understand that they will be enforcing a 2-minute limit on  
> speakers).
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/04/2013 04:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Alan,
>>
>> We don't like the re-worked middle paragraph so let's remove it  
>> entirely.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg  
>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>
>>> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I have  
>>> recommended at various times, and are partly strong views that  
>>> others have had, so I would prefer to take the personification  
>>> out of this, just as we do not refer to the positions that NCUC  
>>> or NCSG put forward as "the positions that Robin encouraged them  
>>> to take".
>>>
>>> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen,  
>>> Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely contribute.  
>>> But the bottom line is that we have a very short time and a very  
>>> packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all sure that the  
>>> outcome will be very different from what we have said before.  
>>> That being said, I think that we will have quick closure on the  
>>> 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry, because the is what we  
>>> had originally envisioned, even if not stated.
>>>
>>> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG  
>>> and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if your  
>>> think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get this out  
>>> to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it tomorrow morning.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> =================
>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the  
>>> creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new  
>>> gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that  
>>> staff would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some  
>>> aspects of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate  
>>> policy development processes.
>>>
>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are  
>>> not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as  
>>> "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their  
>>> trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark  
>>> identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one aspect.  
>>> Companies that file for trademark registrations in many countries  
>>> may have 50 additional strings per trademark per national  
>>> registration. That would result in potentially thousands of  
>>> additional strings per mark. Our communities are unified in that  
>>> if this new protection should be implemented, it must be limited  
>>> to 50 additional strings per mark without getting additional  
>>> benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in different  
>>> jurisdictions.
>>>
>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the  
>>> explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the  
>>> GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require  
>>> GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of  
>>> the bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention  
>>> and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and  
>>> respect the community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy  
>>> development process that ICANN claims to champion.
>>>
>>> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Alan,
>>>>
>>>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is  
>>>> unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the  
>>>> position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of the  
>>>> serious substantive problems with this proposal that have come  
>>>> to light since it was developed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint  
>>>>>> statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.   
>>>>>> Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>> for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would not  
>>>>>> create or alter community-developed policy, this proposal was  
>>>>>> adopted outside of the appropriate policy development process  
>>>>>> and goes well beyond implementation details and creates  
>>>>>> entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>>>>
>>>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal was  
>>>>> deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement. That  
>>>>> is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The following text  
>>>>> in my mind would be acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>> for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>> developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the  
>>>>>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark  
>>>>>> owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark  
>>>>>> for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering the  
>>>>>> receipt of an infringement warning notice to registrants.    
>>>>>> Since big companies file for trademark registrations in many  
>>>>>> countries, and each country's registration will entitle them  
>>>>>> to another 50 additional derivations of that word under this  
>>>>>> policy, thousands of words per trademark can actually trigger  
>>>>>> the warning notice for a single trademark of a large company.   
>>>>>> This proposal presents a chilling effect on speech as some  
>>>>>> registrants will be intimidated about going forward with the  
>>>>>> registration even though they would be using that word  
>>>>>> lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning  
>>>>>> notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal  
>>>>>> penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in  
>>>>>> the registration of a domain but are later determined to been  
>>>>>> in violation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in  
>>>>> fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC would  
>>>>> want to disavow such statements now, but that is not something  
>>>>> that this small drafting group has the mandate to do. I believe  
>>>>> however, that the ALAC would support (but would need formal  
>>>>> approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings per unique mark  
>>>>> and not per each registration of the same mark. But to re- 
>>>>> iterate, the ALAC has objected to the PROCESS, not the  
>>>>> substance of this proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail,  
>>>>>> the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that  
>>>>>> the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to  
>>>>>> require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.   
>>>>>> Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that  
>>>>>> deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse  
>>>>>> this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi- 
>>>>>> stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to  
>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/6c4459f2/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 10 18:32:15 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:32:15 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <0034e087-1fe6-4fcb-b328-4a1f0e93c031@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<CE53BC6F-A9DE-4B7B-B21F-591F61C7D1E6@ipjustice.org>
	<06031cf8-2a98-47de-9a1d-ef7117c63d86@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<DA7E1D58-9BD1-45D8-9167-B4F5D3FFDE0E@ipjustice.org>
	<0034e087-1fe6-4fcb-b328-4a1f0e93c031@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <727120E4-E619-46F0-8813-EAE6623CCB68@ipjustice.org>

Alan,

We are talking about process - the part of that we were unified about  
- you said. So I took out the part about substance - the part we  
didn't agree about.

Add the word "process" in there again somewhere to clarify if that  
helps.

Thanks,
Robin


On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Robin, you changed:
>
> "...our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the  
> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>
> to
>
> "...our communities are unified regarding the the proposal known as  
> "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>
> Ignoring the duplicate "the" typo, changing "are not unified" to  
> "are unified" is not a trivial change.
>
> I am not permitted to send you the NCSG PC list. I presume you will  
> forward my mail.
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/04/2013 08:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> It didn't flow properly with the 2nd para totally removed.  So I  
>> took out the problematic part, but left the explanation of what TM 
>> +50 is.
>>
>> Can we go with the following?:
>>
>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>> are unified regarding the the proposal known as "trademark +  
>>>>> 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus  
>>>>> 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into  
>>>>> the TMCH.  While we appreciate staff's admission that this  
>>>>> particular proposal was a policy issue and not an  
>>>>> implementation detail, the explanations provided for the  
>>>>> adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support  
>>>>> and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been  
>>>>> woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led  
>>>>> bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that  
>>>>> ICANN claims to champion.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>> In light of this, I will propose the abbreviated version to the  
>>> ALAC (that is, the 1st and 3rd paragraph only).
>>>
>>> In light of the Council discussion that just happened, my  
>>> inclination is to recommend that we support the statement that I  
>>> think Jonathan will be making, specifically, that as the gTLD  
>>> policy body of ICANN, if the Board is to overrule the GNSO, they  
>>> are owed the courtesy of having a frank and open discussion on  
>>> the matter prior to finalizing any decision.
>>>
>>> Since I cannot predict which way the ALAC will go, I would  
>>> suggest that you have prepared for the open forum, the two  
>>> paragraphs mentioned above, as well as a fuller NCSG statement  
>>> (recalling that I understand that they will be enforcing a 2- 
>>> minute limit on speakers).
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 10/04/2013 04:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Alan,
>>>>
>>>> We don't like the re-worked middle paragraph so let's remove it  
>>>> entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg  
>>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I  
>>>>> have recommended at various times, and are partly strong views  
>>>>> that others have had, so I would prefer to take the  
>>>>> personification out of this, just as we do not refer to the  
>>>>> positions that NCUC or NCSG put forward as "the positions that  
>>>>> Robin encouraged them to take".
>>>>>
>>>>> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen,  
>>>>> Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely  
>>>>> contribute. But the bottom line is that we have a very short  
>>>>> time and a very packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all  
>>>>> sure that the outcome will be very different from what we have  
>>>>> said before. That being said, I think that we will have quick  
>>>>> closure on the 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry,  
>>>>> because the is what we had originally envisioned, even if not  
>>>>> stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG  
>>>>> and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if  
>>>>> your think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get  
>>>>> this out to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it  
>>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> =================
>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>> are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known  
>>>>> as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their  
>>>>> trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark  
>>>>> identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one  
>>>>> aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many  
>>>>> countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per  
>>>>> national registration. That would result in potentially  
>>>>> thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are  
>>>>> unified in that if this new protection should be implemented,  
>>>>> it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without  
>>>>> getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the  
>>>>> same mark in different jurisdictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail,  
>>>>> the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that  
>>>>> the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to  
>>>>> require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.   
>>>>> Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that  
>>>>> deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse  
>>>>> this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi- 
>>>>> stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to  
>>>>> champion.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is  
>>>>>> unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the  
>>>>>> position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of  
>>>>>> the serious substantive problems with this proposal that have  
>>>>>> come to light since it was developed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint  
>>>>>>>> statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.   
>>>>>>>> Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>>> for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would  
>>>>>>>> not create or alter community-developed policy, this  
>>>>>>>> proposal was adopted outside of the appropriate policy  
>>>>>>>> development process and goes well beyond implementation  
>>>>>>>> details and creates entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal  
>>>>>>> was deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement.  
>>>>>>> That is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The  
>>>>>>> following text in my mind would be acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>> for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>>>> developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the  
>>>>>>>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark  
>>>>>>>> owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that  
>>>>>>>> mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering  
>>>>>>>> the receipt of an infringement warning notice to  
>>>>>>>> registrants.   Since big companies file for trademark  
>>>>>>>> registrations in many countries, and each country's  
>>>>>>>> registration will entitle them to another 50 additional  
>>>>>>>> derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of  
>>>>>>>> words per trademark can actually trigger the warning notice  
>>>>>>>> for a single trademark of a large company.  This proposal  
>>>>>>>> presents a chilling effect on speech as some registrants  
>>>>>>>> will be intimidated about going forward with the  
>>>>>>>> registration even though they would be using that word  
>>>>>>>> lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning  
>>>>>>>> notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal  
>>>>>>>> penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in  
>>>>>>>> the registration of a domain but are later determined to  
>>>>>>>> been in violation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in  
>>>>>>> fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC  
>>>>>>> would want to disavow such statements now, but that is not  
>>>>>>> something that this small drafting group has the mandate to  
>>>>>>> do. I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would  
>>>>>>> need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings  
>>>>>>> per unique mark and not per each registration of the same  
>>>>>>> mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the  
>>>>>>> PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation  
>>>>>>>> detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the  
>>>>>>>> policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the  
>>>>>>>> ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully  
>>>>>>>> inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community- 
>>>>>>>> led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process  
>>>>>>>> that ICANN claims to champion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/16134f42/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 10 19:03:08 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:03:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <0034e087-1fe6-4fcb-b328-4a1f0e93c031@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<CE53BC6F-A9DE-4B7B-B21F-591F61C7D1E6@ipjustice.org>
	<06031cf8-2a98-47de-9a1d-ef7117c63d86@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<DA7E1D58-9BD1-45D8-9167-B4F5D3FFDE0E@ipjustice.org>
	<0034e087-1fe6-4fcb-b328-4a1f0e93c031@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <AF394C51-8790-4EF9-9A28-E56C60551A08@ipjustice.org>

Alan,

A joint statement should not say where we disagree.  A joint stmt  
should focus only on what we agree - process for creating TM+50 is  
flawed.    Add the word "process" another place to clarify if you  
think it isn't clear.

Thanks,
Robin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Robin, you changed:
>
> "...our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the  
> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>
> to
>
> "...our communities are unified regarding the the proposal known as  
> "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>
> Ignoring the duplicate "the" typo, changing "are not unified" to  
> "are unified" is not a trivial change.
>
> I am not permitted to send you the NCSG PC list. I presume you will  
> forward my mail.
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/04/2013 08:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> It didn't flow properly with the 2nd para totally removed.  So I  
>> took out the problematic part, but left the explanation of what TM 
>> +50 is.
>>
>> Can we go with the following?:
>>
>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>> are unified regarding the the proposal known as "trademark +  
>>>>> 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus  
>>>>> 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into  
>>>>> the TMCH.  While we appreciate staff's admission that this  
>>>>> particular proposal was a policy issue and not an  
>>>>> implementation detail, the explanations provided for the  
>>>>> adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support  
>>>>> and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been  
>>>>> woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led  
>>>>> bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that  
>>>>> ICANN claims to champion.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>> In light of this, I will propose the abbreviated version to the  
>>> ALAC (that is, the 1st and 3rd paragraph only).
>>>
>>> In light of the Council discussion that just happened, my  
>>> inclination is to recommend that we support the statement that I  
>>> think Jonathan will be making, specifically, that as the gTLD  
>>> policy body of ICANN, if the Board is to overrule the GNSO, they  
>>> are owed the courtesy of having a frank and open discussion on  
>>> the matter prior to finalizing any decision.
>>>
>>> Since I cannot predict which way the ALAC will go, I would  
>>> suggest that you have prepared for the open forum, the two  
>>> paragraphs mentioned above, as well as a fuller NCSG statement  
>>> (recalling that I understand that they will be enforcing a 2- 
>>> minute limit on speakers).
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 10/04/2013 04:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> Alan,
>>>>
>>>> We don't like the re-worked middle paragraph so let's remove it  
>>>> entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg  
>>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I  
>>>>> have recommended at various times, and are partly strong views  
>>>>> that others have had, so I would prefer to take the  
>>>>> personification out of this, just as we do not refer to the  
>>>>> positions that NCUC or NCSG put forward as "the positions that  
>>>>> Robin encouraged them to take".
>>>>>
>>>>> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen,  
>>>>> Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely  
>>>>> contribute. But the bottom line is that we have a very short  
>>>>> time and a very packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all  
>>>>> sure that the outcome will be very different from what we have  
>>>>> said before. That being said, I think that we will have quick  
>>>>> closure on the 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry,  
>>>>> because the is what we had originally envisioned, even if not  
>>>>> stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG  
>>>>> and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if  
>>>>> your think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get  
>>>>> this out to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it  
>>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> =================
>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>> are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known  
>>>>> as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their  
>>>>> trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark  
>>>>> identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one  
>>>>> aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many  
>>>>> countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per  
>>>>> national registration. That would result in potentially  
>>>>> thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are  
>>>>> unified in that if this new protection should be implemented,  
>>>>> it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without  
>>>>> getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the  
>>>>> same mark in different jurisdictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail,  
>>>>> the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that  
>>>>> the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to  
>>>>> require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.   
>>>>> Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that  
>>>>> deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse  
>>>>> this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi- 
>>>>> stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to  
>>>>> champion.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is  
>>>>>> unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the  
>>>>>> position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of  
>>>>>> the serious substantive problems with this proposal that have  
>>>>>> come to light since it was developed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint  
>>>>>>>> statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.   
>>>>>>>> Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>>> for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would  
>>>>>>>> not create or alter community-developed policy, this  
>>>>>>>> proposal was adopted outside of the appropriate policy  
>>>>>>>> development process and goes well beyond implementation  
>>>>>>>> details and creates entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal  
>>>>>>> was deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement.  
>>>>>>> That is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The  
>>>>>>> following text in my mind would be acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>> for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>>>> developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the  
>>>>>>>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark  
>>>>>>>> owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that  
>>>>>>>> mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering  
>>>>>>>> the receipt of an infringement warning notice to  
>>>>>>>> registrants.   Since big companies file for trademark  
>>>>>>>> registrations in many countries, and each country's  
>>>>>>>> registration will entitle them to another 50 additional  
>>>>>>>> derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of  
>>>>>>>> words per trademark can actually trigger the warning notice  
>>>>>>>> for a single trademark of a large company.  This proposal  
>>>>>>>> presents a chilling effect on speech as some registrants  
>>>>>>>> will be intimidated about going forward with the  
>>>>>>>> registration even though they would be using that word  
>>>>>>>> lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning  
>>>>>>>> notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal  
>>>>>>>> penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in  
>>>>>>>> the registration of a domain but are later determined to  
>>>>>>>> been in violation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in  
>>>>>>> fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC  
>>>>>>> would want to disavow such statements now, but that is not  
>>>>>>> something that this small drafting group has the mandate to  
>>>>>>> do. I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would  
>>>>>>> need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings  
>>>>>>> per unique mark and not per each registration of the same  
>>>>>>> mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the  
>>>>>>> PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation  
>>>>>>>> detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the  
>>>>>>>> policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the  
>>>>>>>> ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully  
>>>>>>>> inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community- 
>>>>>>>> led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process  
>>>>>>>> that ICANN claims to champion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/9cb107c6/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Apr 11 04:19:26 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:19:26 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <AF394C51-8790-4EF9-9A28-E56C60551A08@ipjustice.org>
References: <03B5BEEC-6AF2-4E7D-B497-089B5F3DAB00@ipjustice.org>
	<32908106-ab29-499e-a854-60d55154600b@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<5F137476-A506-45A4-BDE3-7B97746DCC02@ipjustice.org>
	<cfe92bc4-0902-4ca4-896f-ee55001c7e56@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<CE53BC6F-A9DE-4B7B-B21F-591F61C7D1E6@ipjustice.org>
	<06031cf8-2a98-47de-9a1d-ef7117c63d86@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<DA7E1D58-9BD1-45D8-9167-B4F5D3FFDE0E@ipjustice.org>
	<0034e087-1fe6-4fcb-b328-4a1f0e93c031@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<AF394C51-8790-4EF9-9A28-E56C60551A08@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <292d2b44-a1bf-4964-8d15-3689a149e71c@email.android.com>

Hi,

As a member of the NCSG-PC I indicated that I was against a joint statement that included discussion of disagreements. If we don't have enough agreement for a joint statement, we should not send a joint statement.


Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>Alan,
>
>A joint statement should not say where we disagree.  A joint stmt  
>should focus only on what we agree - process for creating TM+50 is  
>flawed.    Add the word "process" another place to clarify if you  
>think it isn't clear.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>> Robin, you changed:
>>
>> "...our communities are not unified on the overall substance of the  
>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "...our communities are unified regarding the the proposal known as  
>> "trademark + 50" which allows..."
>>
>> Ignoring the duplicate "the" typo, changing "are not unified" to  
>> "are unified" is not a trivial change.
>>
>> I am not permitted to send you the NCSG PC list. I presume you will  
>> forward my mail.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 10/04/2013 08:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> It didn't flow properly with the 2nd para totally removed.  So I  
>>> took out the problematic part, but left the explanation of what TM 
>>> +50 is.
>>>
>>> Can we go with the following?:
>>>
>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>>> are unified regarding the the proposal known as "trademark +  
>>>>>> 50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus  
>>>>>> 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into  
>>>>>> the TMCH.  While we appreciate staff's admission that this  
>>>>>> particular proposal was a policy issue and not an  
>>>>>> implementation detail, the explanations provided for the  
>>>>>> adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not support  
>>>>>> and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been  
>>>>>> woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community-led  
>>>>>> bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process that  
>>>>>> ICANN claims to champion.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> In light of this, I will propose the abbreviated version to the  
>>>> ALAC (that is, the 1st and 3rd paragraph only).
>>>>
>>>> In light of the Council discussion that just happened, my  
>>>> inclination is to recommend that we support the statement that I  
>>>> think Jonathan will be making, specifically, that as the gTLD  
>>>> policy body of ICANN, if the Board is to overrule the GNSO, they  
>>>> are owed the courtesy of having a frank and open discussion on  
>>>> the matter prior to finalizing any decision.
>>>>
>>>> Since I cannot predict which way the ALAC will go, I would  
>>>> suggest that you have prepared for the open forum, the two  
>>>> paragraphs mentioned above, as well as a fuller NCSG statement  
>>>> (recalling that I understand that they will be enforcing a 2- 
>>>> minute limit on speakers).
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> At 10/04/2013 04:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't like the re-worked middle paragraph so let's remove it  
>>>>> entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Greenberg  
>>>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robin, the positions that ALAC took are surely partly what I  
>>>>>> have recommended at various times, and are partly strong views  
>>>>>> that others have had, so I would prefer to take the  
>>>>>> personification out of this, just as we do not refer to the  
>>>>>> positions that NCUC or NCSG put forward as "the positions that  
>>>>>> Robin encouraged them to take".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will surely present the issue to ALAC, and as you have seen,  
>>>>>> Evan has had some second thoughts and he will surely  
>>>>>> contribute. But the bottom line is that we have a very short  
>>>>>> time and a very packed meeting tomorrow, and I am not at all  
>>>>>> sure that the outcome will be very different from what we have  
>>>>>> said before. That being said, I think that we will have quick  
>>>>>> closure on the 50 per mark instead of 50 per TMCH entry,  
>>>>>> because the is what we had originally envisioned, even if not  
>>>>>> stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a statement that I believe covers the places where NCSG  
>>>>>> and ALAC currently have common ground. Please let me know if  
>>>>>> your think that this is acceptable, since we will need to get  
>>>>>> this out to the ALAC very quickly if we are to ratify it  
>>>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =================
>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>> for new gTLD    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>>> developed Policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities  
>>>>>> are not unified on the overall substance of the proposal known  
>>>>>> as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark owners to add their  
>>>>>> trademark plus 50 derivations of that mark for each trademark  
>>>>>> identifier into the TMCH. However, we are unified on one  
>>>>>> aspect. Companies that file for trademark registrations in many  
>>>>>> countries may have 50 additional strings per trademark per  
>>>>>> national registration. That would result in potentially  
>>>>>> thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities are  
>>>>>> unified in that if this new protection should be implemented,  
>>>>>> it must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without  
>>>>>> getting additional benefit from multiple registrations of the  
>>>>>> same mark in different jurisdictions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation detail,  
>>>>>> the explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that  
>>>>>> the GNSO Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to  
>>>>>> require GNSO development have been woefully inadequate.   
>>>>>> Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious issue that  
>>>>>> deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to reverse  
>>>>>> this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up multi- 
>>>>>> stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to  
>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 10/04/2013 09:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we can agree to take out the substance, but it is  
>>>>>>> unfortunate that you don't seem willing to re-examine the  
>>>>>>> position you encouraged ALAC to previously adopt in light of  
>>>>>>> the serious substantive problems with this proposal that have  
>>>>>>> come to light since it was developed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At 09/04/2013 12:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Below is the first draft of proposed text for a joint  
>>>>>>>>> statement.  Please propose edits to satisfy your concerns.   
>>>>>>>>> Let's get a statement on this important issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>>>> for new gtld policy.   Despite assurances that staff would  
>>>>>>>>> not create or alter community-developed policy, this  
>>>>>>>>> proposal was adopted outside of the appropriate policy  
>>>>>>>>> development process and goes well beyond implementation  
>>>>>>>>> details and creates entirely new policy out of whole cloth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This gives the impression that the entire strawman proposal  
>>>>>>>> was deemed by ALAC to be policy and needed GNSO involvement.  
>>>>>>>> That is not the position that the ALAC has taken. The  
>>>>>>>> following text in my mind would be acceptable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to  
>>>>>>>> the creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal  
>>>>>>>> for new gtld    rights protection mechanisms.  Despite  
>>>>>>>> assurances that staff would not create or alter community- 
>>>>>>>> developed policy, some aspects of this proposal were adopted  
>>>>>>>> outside of the appropriate policy development processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In particular, we are concerned about the substance of the  
>>>>>>>>> proposal known as "trademark + 50" which allows trademark  
>>>>>>>>> owners to add their trademark plus 50 derivations of that  
>>>>>>>>> mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH, triggering  
>>>>>>>>> the receipt of an infringement warning notice to  
>>>>>>>>> registrants.   Since big companies file for trademark  
>>>>>>>>> registrations in many countries, and each country's  
>>>>>>>>> registration will entitle them to another 50 additional  
>>>>>>>>> derivations of that word under this policy, thousands of  
>>>>>>>>> words per trademark can actually trigger the warning notice  
>>>>>>>>> for a single trademark of a large company.  This proposal  
>>>>>>>>> presents a chilling effect on speech as some registrants  
>>>>>>>>> will be intimidated about going forward with the  
>>>>>>>>> registration even though they would be using that word  
>>>>>>>>> lawfully.  Additionally, the receipt of one of these warning  
>>>>>>>>> notices is legally significant as it will trigger criminal  
>>>>>>>>> penalties for people who believe they are acting lawfully in  
>>>>>>>>> the registration of a domain but are later determined to  
>>>>>>>>> been in violation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This goes far further than any ALAC statement to date, and in  
>>>>>>>> fact is counter to some ALAC positions. Perhaps the ALAC  
>>>>>>>> would want to disavow such statements now, but that is not  
>>>>>>>> something that this small drafting group has the mandate to  
>>>>>>>> do. I believe however, that the ALAC would support (but would  
>>>>>>>> need formal approval) to limit the extensions to 50 strings  
>>>>>>>> per unique mark and not per each registration of the same  
>>>>>>>> mark. But to re-iterate, the ALAC has objected to the  
>>>>>>>> PROCESS, not the substance of this proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While we appreciate staff???s admission that this particular  
>>>>>>>>> proposal was a policy issue and not an implementation  
>>>>>>>>> detail, the explanations provided for the adoption of the  
>>>>>>>>> policy that the GNSO Council did not support and that the  
>>>>>>>>> ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been woefully  
>>>>>>>>> inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a  
>>>>>>>>> serious issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call  
>>>>>>>>> upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the community- 
>>>>>>>>> led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process  
>>>>>>>>> that ICANN claims to champion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I added some words in Blue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130411/c7c5b04f/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Apr 11 08:55:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:55:23 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
References: <7a169f98-ceb4-4bc7-b2ef-b229af13aaf1@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <B811DE40-CA24-4BF5-B55B-542749689FDB@ipjustice.org>

No joint statement with alac.  Disappointing.

Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: April 11, 2013 12:12:31 PM GMT+08:00
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
> Subject: Re: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
> 

> Robin, At the time we had to make a decision, we did not have specific wording and the ALAC chose to not take any action on this. 
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 10/04/2013 11:32 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Alan,
>> 
>> We are talking about process - the part of that we were unified about - you said. So I took out the part about substance - the part we didn't agree about.
>> 
>> Add the word "process" in there again somewhere to clarify if that helps.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130411/1816e700/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Thu Apr 11 09:04:11 2013
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:04:11 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <B811DE40-CA24-4BF5-B55B-542749689FDB@ipjustice.org>
References: <7a169f98-ceb4-4bc7-b2ef-b229af13aaf1@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<B811DE40-CA24-4BF5-B55B-542749689FDB@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tYfOysiVxpkHZ-Z_OFOAcndMC64_tEh7HS5etF0+w4Qw@mail.gmail.com>

`Robin,

This is really sad indeed, am short of words to say.

Peace

Poncelet

On 11 April 2013 05:55, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> No joint statement with alac.  Disappointing.
>
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Date:* April 11, 2013 12:12:31 PM GMT+08:00
> *To:* Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Evan Leibovitch <
> evan at telly.org>, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>, David Cake <
> dave at difference.com.au>
> *Subject:* *Re: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG*
>
> Robin, At the time we had to make a decision, we did not have specific
> wording and the ALAC chose to not take any action on this.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/04/2013 11:32 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> We are talking about process - the part of that we were unified about -
> you said. So I took out the part about substance - the part we didn't agree
> about.
>
> Add the word "process" in there again somewhere to clarify if that helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130411/48a17ec7/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Thu Apr 11 09:09:07 2013
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:09:07 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <B811DE40-CA24-4BF5-B55B-542749689FDB@ipjustice.org>
References: <7a169f98-ceb4-4bc7-b2ef-b229af13aaf1@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<B811DE40-CA24-4BF5-B55B-542749689FDB@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40v2zJGStHGopSZvu1n5UUSptR+k+QXOG5vv3hb9_EKs8A@mail.gmail.com>

`Robin,

This is really sad indeed, am short of words to say.

Peace

Poncelet

On 11 April 2013 05:55, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> No joint statement with alac.  Disappointing.
>
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Date:* April 11, 2013 12:12:31 PM GMT+08:00
> *To:* Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Evan Leibovitch <
> evan at telly.org>, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>, David Cake <
> dave at difference.com.au>
> *Subject:* *Re: proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG*
>
> Robin, At the time we had to make a decision, we did not have specific
> wording and the ALAC chose to not take any action on this.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Alan
>
> At 10/04/2013 11:32 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> We are talking about process - the part of that we were unified about -
> you said. So I took out the part about substance - the part we didn't agree
> about.
>
> Add the word "process" in there again somewhere to clarify if that helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130411/f1f80143/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 17 04:45:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:45:31 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a POLICY matter
	and NOT Implementation
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
Message-ID: <032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:

I notice on the GNSO Council mailing list discussion of sending the  
letter on TM+50 there remains some confusion as to whether staff  
considered this matter "policy" or "implementation".  But that is not  
the issue!  Please don't let them get away with this slight-of-hand  
trick.

Below is the text where staff admitted TM+50 was a policy matter that  
needed GNSO Council guidance.  So this isn't a case of staff calls  
something "implementation".  Staff admitted this was "policy" and  
still provided no explanation for why/how it gets to change GNSO- 
approved policy.   Would a GNSO Councilor please point this out to  
the council?

This is NOT part of the policy v implementation debate.  This is  
admitted policy and we need to remind council of this fact.

Thank you,
Robin



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a  
> POLICY matter is still on the web
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of  
> TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff  
> has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO POLICY  
> that it admits is policy and not implementation.
>
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark- 
> clearinghouse-meetings/
>
>
>
> A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings
>
> by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012
>
> To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders  
> to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation, we  
> conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked on  
> these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.
>
> We discussed two items:
>
>    1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
>    2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the  
> meeting in Los Angeles.
>
> Contracts
>
> ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database  
> services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to  
> include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum  
> operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark  
> database.
>
> Here is an overview:
>
>     * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the  
> Trademark Clearinghouse data.
>     * Deloitte?s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN  
> may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum  
> stability is met.
>     * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record.  
> Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
>     * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an  
> application processing interface (API), and will charge registries  
> and registrars for real-time access to the database during the  
> sunrise and claims periods.
>     * ICANN may audit Deloitte?s performance (and revenues/costs)  
> to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are  
> reasonable.
>
> We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the  
> agreements will be posted once signed.
>
> The "Strawman Solution"
>
> As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman  
> solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to  
> determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or  
> implementation process. We did not find that any element of the  
> strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO  
> recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal  
> rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally  
> accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However,  
> the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended  
> steps for consideration, as described below.
>
>     * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition  
> of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into  
> the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend  
> specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help  
> address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially  
> in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
>     * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60  
> to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter  
> of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a  
> ?Claims 2? process could also fall into the category of  
> implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for  
> rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and  
> registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period.  
> This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark  
> holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark  
> Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there  
> are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I  
> envision that these fees can be offset when the process is  
> implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for  
> this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and  
> registrars.
>     *
>
>       Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings  
> previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse  
> for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.  
> This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of  
> additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a  
> decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the  
> previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections  
> associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we  
> believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.
>
>       I wrote in the original version of this blog post: ?the  
> inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in  
> the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be  
> considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a  
> limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record.  
> This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights  
> should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names  
> would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or  
> a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account  
> names for which the issues have already been balanced and  
> considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on  
> the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record,  
> involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO  
> Council.? This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the  
> nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>
> I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for  
> guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the  
> strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am  
> also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal  
> from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to  
> address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although  
> this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will  
> be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.
>
> As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants  
> selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank  
> them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements  
> to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new  
> gTLDs.
>
> I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome  
> of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen  
> later this week or next week.
>
> Sincerely,
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130416/87fa1a75/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Apr 19 21:07:13 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:07:13 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key
	fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list
In-Reply-To: <032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
	<032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:

Please do not allow this (TM+50) issue to be portrayed as an  
"implementation" issue as it currently is on the GNSO list.  Staff  
admitted TM+50 was a "policy matter that needed GNSO Council  
guidance".   Someone really needs to remind the council of this  
important fact before the letter is sent claiming this is part of the  
Implementation v Policy debate.  Staff said it was a policy issue  
needing GNSO guidance and when it got that guidance, it ignored that  
guidance.  One would think the GNSO Council would care to mention  
that fact instead of pretending this just part of the "implementation  
v. policy" debate.

We really need for an NCSG GNSO Councilor to point this key fact out  
to the GNSO Council.  Someone?  Anyone?  Please....

Thanks,
Robin




On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:
>
> I notice on the GNSO Council mailing list discussion of sending the  
> letter on TM+50 there remains some confusion as to whether staff  
> considered this matter "policy" or "implementation".  But that is  
> not the issue!  Please don't let them get away with this slight-of- 
> hand trick.
>
> Below is the text where staff admitted TM+50 was a policy matter  
> that needed GNSO Council guidance.  So this isn't a case of staff  
> calls something "implementation".  Staff admitted this was "policy"  
> and still provided no explanation for why/how it gets to change  
> GNSO-approved policy.   Would a GNSO Councilor please point this  
> out to the council?
>
> This is NOT part of the policy v implementation debate.  This is  
> admitted policy and we need to remind council of this fact.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a  
>> POLICY matter is still on the web
>> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>
>> Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of  
>> TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff  
>> has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO  
>> POLICY that it admits is policy and not implementation.
>>
>> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark- 
>> clearinghouse-meetings/
>>
>>
>>
>> A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings
>>
>> by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012
>>
>> To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders  
>> to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation,  
>> we conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked  
>> on these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.
>>
>> We discussed two items:
>>
>>    1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
>>    2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the  
>> meeting in Los Angeles.
>>
>> Contracts
>>
>> ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database  
>> services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to  
>> include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum  
>> operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the  
>> trademark database.
>>
>> Here is an overview:
>>
>>     * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the  
>> Trademark Clearinghouse data.
>>     * Deloitte?s validation services are to be non-exclusive.  
>> ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum  
>> stability is met.
>>     * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record.  
>> Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
>>     * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an  
>> application processing interface (API), and will charge registries  
>> and registrars for real-time access to the database during the  
>> sunrise and claims periods.
>>     * ICANN may audit Deloitte?s performance (and revenues/costs)  
>> to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are  
>> reasonable.
>>
>> We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the  
>> agreements will be posted once signed.
>>
>> The "Strawman Solution"
>>
>> As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman  
>> solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to  
>> determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or  
>> implementation process. We did not find that any element of the  
>> strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO  
>> recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal  
>> rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under  
>> generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of  
>> law. However, the analysis of the various elements yielded  
>> different recommended steps for consideration, as described below.
>>
>>     * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the  
>> addition of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls  
>> clearly into the realm of implementation. The policy advice did  
>> not recommend specific time periods, and this is a reasonable  
>> means to help address the communications concerns of rights  
>> holders, especially in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
>>     * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60  
>> to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a  
>> matter of continuing a service that is already required. The  
>> addition of a ?Claims 2? process could also fall into the category  
>> of implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service  
>> for rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries  
>> and registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1  
>> period. This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and  
>> trademark holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the  
>> Trademark Claims service developed by the community. To the extent  
>> that there are additional costs incurred by registries and  
>> registrars, I envision that these fees can be offset when the  
>> process is implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected  
>> by IBM for this voluntary service are to be shared with registries  
>> and registrars.
>>     *
>>
>>       Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings  
>> previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse  
>> for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy  
>> matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited  
>> number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the  
>> basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding.  
>> Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of  
>> protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the  
>> IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.
>>
>>       I wrote in the original version of this blog post: ?the  
>> inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered  
>> in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be  
>> considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a  
>> limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record.  
>> This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights  
>> should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names  
>> would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP  
>> or a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account  
>> names for which the issues have already been balanced and  
>> considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on  
>> the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record,  
>> involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the  
>> GNSO Council.? This language appeared to create ambiguity as to  
>> the nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>>
>> I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for  
>> guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the  
>> strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am  
>> also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal  
>> from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to  
>> address the need for second-level defensive registrations.  
>> Although this proposal is not currently part of the strawman  
>> model, I will be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this  
>> proposal as well.
>>
>> As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants  
>> selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank  
>> them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements  
>> to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new  
>> gTLDs.
>>
>> I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome  
>> of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen  
>> later this week or next week.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130419/eed89b51/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Apr 19 21:13:51 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:13:51 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key
	fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list
In-Reply-To: <149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
	<032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>
	<149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <270E09A9-214C-4BCA-A200-0845B6A4138A@uzh.ch>

Not volunteering, just saying?

If someone has the juice to put together a couple para for the council list, why not also put it on Circle ID?  Our positions often don't get visibility outside the inner circles in which they're dismissed?getting others than opposing Councilors to read and respond to them would be sensible.

BD

On Apr 19, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:
>  
> Please do not allow this (TM+50) issue to be portrayed as an "implementation" issue as it currently is on the GNSO list.  Staff admitted TM+50 was a "policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance".   Someone really needs to remind the council of this important fact before the letter is sent claiming this is part of the Implementation v Policy debate.  Staff said it was a policy issue needing GNSO guidance and when it got that guidance, it ignored that guidance.  One would think the GNSO Council would care to mention that fact instead of pretending this just part of the "implementation v. policy" debate.   
> 
> We really need for an NCSG GNSO Councilor to point this key fact out to the GNSO Council.  Someone?  Anyone?  Please....
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:
>> 
>> I notice on the GNSO Council mailing list discussion of sending the letter on TM+50 there remains some confusion as to whether staff considered this matter "policy" or "implementation".  But that is not the issue!  Please don't let them get away with this slight-of-hand trick.  
>> 
>> Below is the text where staff admitted TM+50 was a policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance.  So this isn't a case of staff calls something "implementation".  Staff admitted this was "policy" and still provided no explanation for why/how it gets to change GNSO-approved policy.   Would a GNSO Councilor please point this out to the council?
>> 
>> This is NOT part of the policy v implementation debate.  This is admitted policy and we need to remind council of this fact.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a POLICY matter is still on the web
>>> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO POLICY that it admits is policy and not implementation.
>>> 
>>> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings
>>> 
>>> by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012
>>> 
>>> To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation, we conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked on these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.
>>> 
>>> We discussed two items:
>>> 
>>>    1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
>>>    2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the meeting in Los Angeles.
>>> 
>>> Contracts
>>> 
>>> ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark database.
>>> 
>>> Here is an overview:
>>> 
>>>     * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data.
>>>     * Deloitte?s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met.
>>>     * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
>>>     * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API), and will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods.
>>>     * ICANN may audit Deloitte?s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable.
>>> 
>>> We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the agreements will be posted once signed.
>>> 
>>> The "Strawman Solution"
>>> 
>>> As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or implementation process. We did not find that any element of the strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However, the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended steps for consideration, as described below.
>>> 
>>>     * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
>>>     * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a ?Claims 2? process could also fall into the category of implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period. This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I envision that these fees can be offset when the process is implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and registrars.
>>>     *
>>> 
>>>       Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.
>>> 
>>>       I wrote in the original version of this blog post: ?the inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record. This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account names for which the issues have already been balanced and considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.? This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>>> 
>>> I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.
>>> 
>>> As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new gTLDs.
>>> 
>>> I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen later this week or next week.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130419/95ef9b6a/attachment-0001.html>


From kleiman  Fri Apr 19 21:14:35 2013
From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:14:35 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key
 fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list
In-Reply-To: <149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
	<032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>
	<149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <e33d026709974b448a85ef90e855481e@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Hi All,
As everyone knows, I have a slightly different view on this. I think we should concede that everyone knows a mistake was made here, but given that ICANN is likely to move forward with it, we should be contesting the result, as well as the process.

As David Cake pointed out in the public forum, TM+50 is simply too much.  It opens the door to too much gaming, too much creativity, too many unneeded possibilities. While we don't like the idea of TM+anything,  I really hate the idea of TM+50.  Accordingly, would TM+5 be the end of the world?

Best,
Kathy

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:07 PM
To: NCSG-Policy Policy
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list

Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:

Please do not allow this (TM+50) issue to be portrayed as an "implementation" issue as it currently is on the GNSO list.  Staff admitted TM+50 was a "policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance".   Someone really needs to remind the council of this important fact before the letter is sent claiming this is part of the Implementation v Policy debate.  Staff said it was a policy issue needing GNSO guidance and when it got that guidance, it ignored that guidance.  One would think the GNSO Council would care to mention that fact instead of pretending this just part of the "implementation v. policy" debate.

We really need for an NCSG GNSO Councilor to point this key fact out to the GNSO Council.  Someone?  Anyone?  Please....

Thanks,
Robin




On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:


Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:

I notice on the GNSO Council mailing list discussion of sending the letter on TM+50 there remains some confusion as to whether staff considered this matter "policy" or "implementation".  But that is not the issue!  Please don't let them get away with this slight-of-hand trick.

Below is the text where staff admitted TM+50 was a policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance.  So this isn't a case of staff calls something "implementation".  Staff admitted this was "policy" and still provided no explanation for why/how it gets to change GNSO-approved policy.   Would a GNSO Councilor please point this out to the council?

This is NOT part of the policy v implementation debate.  This is admitted policy and we need to remind council of this fact.

Thank you,
Robin



Begin forwarded message:


From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG<mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>>
Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a POLICY matter is still on the web
Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG<mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>>

Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO POLICY that it admits is policy and not implementation.


http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/



A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings

by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012

To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation, we conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked on these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.

We discussed two items:

   1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
   2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the meeting in Los Angeles.

Contracts

ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark database.

Here is an overview:

    * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data.
    * Deloitte's validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met.
    * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
    * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API), and will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods.
    * ICANN may audit Deloitte's performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable.

We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the agreements will be posted once signed.

The "Strawman Solution"

As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or implementation process. We did not find that any element of the strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However, the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended steps for consideration, as described below.

    * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
    * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a "Claims 2" process could also fall into the category of implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period. This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I envision that these fees can be offset when the process is implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and registrars.
    *

      Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.

      I wrote in the original version of this blog post: "the inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record. This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account names for which the issues have already been balanced and considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council." This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.

I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.

As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new gTLDs.

I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen later this week or next week.

Sincerely,
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<mailto: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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto: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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130419/464f148a/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Apr 19 21:30:07 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:30:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key
	fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list
In-Reply-To: <e33d026709974b448a85ef90e855481e@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F58B0968-A1A0-4F34-8E63-4832F1AB1C36@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
	<032B4C37-CB3A-4B0A-BA2A-202CDFEE3E4A@ipjustice.org>
	<149AD94F-0FF0-4816-97DE-13F0779D0B13@ipjustice.org>
	<e33d026709974b448a85ef90e855481e@BY2PR06MB105.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9BB76B8F-306A-44A4-87D5-E0B8074041E3@acm.org>

i am confused

What is the point of view
and the slightly different point of view.

i think i read every body saying tm+50 was bad, both from a process and policy perspective.  I can't tell what the difference in POV is.

avri



On 19 Apr 2013, at 14:14, Kathryn Kleiman wrote:

> Hi All,
> As everyone knows, I have a slightly different view on this. I think we should concede that everyone knows a mistake was made here, but given that ICANN is likely to move forward with it, we should be contesting the result, as well as the process.
>  
> As David Cake pointed out in the public forum, TM+50 is simply too much.  It opens the door to too much gaming, too much creativity, too many unneeded possibilities. While we don?t like the idea of TM+anything,  I really hate the idea of TM+50.  Accordingly, would TM+5 be the end of the world?
>  
> Best,
> Kathy
>  
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:07 PM
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Is anyone there? We need your help pointing out a key fact that IPC is trying to sweep under the rug on GNSO Council list
>  
> Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:
>  
> Please do not allow this (TM+50) issue to be portrayed as an "implementation" issue as it currently is on the GNSO list.  Staff admitted TM+50 was a "policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance".   Someone really needs to remind the council of this important fact before the letter is sent claiming this is part of the Implementation v Policy debate.  Staff said it was a policy issue needing GNSO guidance and when it got that guidance, it ignored that guidance.  One would think the GNSO Council would care to mention that fact instead of pretending this just part of the "implementation v. policy" debate.   
>  
> We really need for an NCSG GNSO Councilor to point this key fact out to the GNSO Council.  Someone?  Anyone?  Please....
>  
> Thanks,
> Robin
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear NCSG GNSO Councilors:
>  
> I notice on the GNSO Council mailing list discussion of sending the letter on TM+50 there remains some confusion as to whether staff considered this matter "policy" or "implementation".  But that is not the issue!  Please don't let them get away with this slight-of-hand trick.  
>  
> Below is the text where staff admitted TM+50 was a policy matter that needed GNSO Council guidance.  So this isn't a case of staff calls something "implementation".  Staff admitted this was "policy" and still provided no explanation for why/how it gets to change GNSO-approved policy.   Would a GNSO Councilor please point this out to the council?
>  
> This is NOT part of the policy v implementation debate.  This is admitted policy and we need to remind council of this fact.
>  
> Thank you,
> Robin
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: April 10, 2013 11:52:12 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Expanding scope of TM claims to TM+50 is a POLICY matter is still on the web
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>  
> Below is the blog post Fadi had to fix to admit expanding scope of TM claims was a POLICY matter.   It is still on the web, but staff has provided no explanation as to how it gets to change GNSO POLICY that it admits is policy and not implementation.
> 
> 
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/
>  
>  
>  
> A Follow-Up to Our Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings
>  
> by Fadi Chehad? on November 26, 2012
>  
> To wrap up the series of meetings ICANN convened with stakeholders to find common ground on Trademark Clearinghouse implementation, we conducted a follow-up briefing today for the group who worked on these issues during our meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles.
>  
> We discussed two items:
>  
>    1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
>    2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the meeting in Los Angeles.
>  
> Contracts
>  
> ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark database.
>  
> Here is an overview:
>  
>     * ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data.
>     * Deloitte?s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met.
>     * Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
>     * IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API), and will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods.
>     * ICANN may audit Deloitte?s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable.
>  
> We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the agreements will be posted once signed.
>  
> The "Strawman Solution"
>  
> As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or implementation process. We did not find that any element of the strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However, the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended steps for consideration, as described below.
>  
>     * Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
>     * Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a ?Claims 2? process could also fall into the category of implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period. This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I envision that these fees can be offset when the process is implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and registrars.
>     *
>  
>       Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.
>  
>       I wrote in the original version of this blog post: ?the inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record. This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account names for which the issues have already been balanced and considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.? This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.
>  
> I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.
>  
> As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new gTLDs.
>  
> I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen later this week or next week.
>  
> Sincerely,
> 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
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From robin  Sat Apr 20 01:48:26 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:48:26 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
Message-ID: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>

A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the below  
and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.

Thanks,
Robin

1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?

2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad and  
he would re-work it.
a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it  
"implementation"

3.  ATRT2 Comments
We need to get some in by 2 May 2013

4.  WHOIS
Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy  
compliance with international privacy laws

5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name  
registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)

6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network  
Initiative (is that the right name?)

7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts and  
academics next
  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide  
names of recommended participants, etc.

8.  What else???




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130419/845b3441/attachment.html>


From robin  Sat Apr 20 16:17:09 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:17:09 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
References: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <93B654DC-6CFB-45B7-BCB7-39EC40BEE0A1@ipjustice.org>

Oops, forgot a biggie:

8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the Internet


On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the  
> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>
> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad  
> and he would re-work it.
> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it  
> "implementation"
>
> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>
> 4.  WHOIS
> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy  
> compliance with international privacy laws
>
> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name  
> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>
> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network  
> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>
> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts  
> and academics next
>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide  
> names of recommended participants, etc.
>
> 8.  What else???
>
>
>
>
> 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




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130420/e1aaf1cf/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Apr 20 16:52:43 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:52:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <93B654DC-6CFB-45B7-BCB7-39EC40BEE0A1@ipjustice.org>
References: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
	<93B654DC-6CFB-45B7-BCB7-39EC40BEE0A1@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <FF181ED5-5E2C-43C4-848E-8D78F2F4FF90@ella.com>

wow, that is a bunch.

i will find something to work on next week.

avri

On 20 Apr 2013, at 09:17, Robin Gross wrote:

> Oops, forgot a biggie:
> 
> 8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the Internet
> 
> 
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
>> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>> 
>> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50" 
>> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad and he would re-work it.
>> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
>> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
>> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
>> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it "implementation"
>> 
>> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
>> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>> 
>> 4.  WHOIS
>> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy compliance with international privacy laws
>> 
>> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
>> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>> 
>> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network Initiative (is that the right name?)
>> 
>> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts and academics next
>>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide names of recommended participants, etc.
>> 
>> 8.  What else???
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 robin  Sat Apr 20 17:38:24 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:38:24 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <93B654DC-6CFB-45B7-BCB7-39EC40BEE0A1@ipjustice.org>
References: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
	<93B654DC-6CFB-45B7-BCB7-39EC40BEE0A1@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <FB54AB5E-00EB-42F9-80A7-97F177FE099F@ipjustice.org>

And another thing to follow-up on:

At the beginning of this month, NCSG-PC resolved to support the  
comment Wendy & Joy drafted and submitted on RAA:
   http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/ 
msg00015.html

Several of us individually supported the comment at the time, but  
then NCSG-PC resolved to officially support it as well.

Then we all ran off to Beijing and didn't send in the comment  
supporting it.

Technically, the reply period ended yesterday.  But I bet we can  
still submit our comment today endorsing the statement.
   http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13- 
en.htm

Robin



On Apr 20, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Oops, forgot a biggie:
>
> 8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the  
> Internet
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the  
>> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
>> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>>
>> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
>> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad  
>> and he would re-work it.
>> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
>> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
>> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
>> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it  
>> "implementation"
>>
>> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
>> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>>
>> 4.  WHOIS
>> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN  
>> policy compliance with international privacy laws
>>
>> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
>> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name  
>> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>>
>> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network  
>> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>>
>> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts  
>> and academics next
>>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg -  
>> provide names of recommended participants, etc.
>>
>> 8.  What else???
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130420/57da1292/attachment-0001.html>


From Mary.Wong  Sat Apr 20 19:32:53 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:32:53 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
Message-ID: <51728AE40200005B000A7972@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Following up on a brief conversation with Avri and Robin in Beijing, here's the original NCUC comment I sent in responding to the initial ATRT recommendations, way back in (I think) 2011. There may (or may not) be something there that we can build on, e.g. things not yet done or adequate, to give as feedback to ATRT2, esp. given the timing at the moment.


On the GAC communique, there's no formal public comment period open yet, is there? I know a window's been open for applicants themselves to respond formally/directly to the GAC. Does the PC wish to send a letter to the GAC?


Cheers
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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

>>> Robin Gross  04/20/13 9:16 AM >>>
Oops, forgot a biggie:

8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the Internet


On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the  
> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>
> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad  
> and he would re-work it.
> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it  
> "implementation"
>
> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>
> 4.  WHOIS
> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy  
> compliance with international privacy laws
>
> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name  
> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>
> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network  
> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>
> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts  
> and academics next
>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide  
> names of recommended participants, etc.
>
> 8.  What else???
>
>
>
>
> 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




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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on ATRT recommendations.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20958 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130420/d7383426/attachment-0001.obj>


From william.drake  Sun Apr 21 17:51:32 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:51:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
References: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <B5464714-1433-4CE1-8505-52D555A106F6@uzh.ch>

Hi

A small plea, can we please make sure that when stuff like these get done they're sent to Roy Balleste who's organized a team of librarians to aggregate all our policy interventions to go onto the new site http://new.ncuc.org/policy.  There's nowhere on the old site for this.  

On Apr 19, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 
> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network Initiative (is that the right name?)

www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/
> 
> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts and academics next
>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide names of recommended participants, etc.

Yes, if not us, who


From rafik.dammak  Sun Apr 21 17:55:11 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:55:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
References: <FCC07EA6-48BF-44C3-B52A-917E71D8BD06@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=4w=TLffXONiQ8Cf8SM=CENUySMpdfYhhSf88-6-XFdA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin

6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network Initiative (is
> that the right name?)
>
> yes it is the right name, I am trying to following-up and finding some
leverage outside ICANN to help for that. adding some other initiatives can
be helpful too. I am not going to give up this time .


Rafik





>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130421/4837749c/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Apr 23 05:39:27 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:39:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RySG Recommendations
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E2437EFE8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <14967FFE-75FB-479B-8F06-01C4D3D4F5D7@acm.org>

Hi,

So, are we intersted in either supporting, semi-supporting or commenting on this recommendation by the RySG?

avri



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RySG Recommendations
> Date: 20 April 2013 13:28:08 EST
> To: "GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> 
>  
> Here are the RySG recommendations to the WG with regard to policy recommendations.  David & I look forward to answering any questions and discussing the recommendations further on list and in our meeting this coming week.
>  
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President
> 
> cgomes at verisign.com
> t: +1 530 676-1754  m: +1 703 362-8753
> VerisignInc.com
>  
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130422/8ce6cb60/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO INGO PDP WG RySG Recommendations 20 Apr 2013.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33371 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130422/8ce6cb60/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130422/8ce6cb60/attachment-0003.html>


From Mary.Wong  Tue Apr 23 15:58:12 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:58:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RySG Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <14967FFE-75FB-479B-8F06-01C4D3D4F5D7@acm.org>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E2437EFE8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<14967FFE-75FB-479B-8F06-01C4D3D4F5D7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <51764D240200005B000A7B7E@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Thanks for remembering to forward, Avri. I'd stated on the WG call last
week what you reiterated on the mailing list, i.e. that NCSG and NCUC at
the moment are largely against exceptions at the top and second level,
but might be amenable (at least some members) to considering a modified
TMCH approach to some names. 

That said, I personally think the Ry recommendations are relatively
sound and may politically and practically be a reasonable solution. I
think we should support names only, not acronyms, for sure, and
emphasize that no further exceptions or allowances be made after this
point for this gTLD round. We may be able to come up with a statement
that supports part or most of the Ry recommendations, I guess. 

Cheers 
Mary 


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
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


>>> 


From:  
Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 

To: 
NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
4/22/2013 10:39 PM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RySG Recommendations 

Hi, 



So, are we intersted in either supporting, semi-supporting or
commenting on this recommendation by the RySG? 



avri 







Begin forwarded message: 





From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>

Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RySG Recommendations

Date: 20 April 2013 13:28:08 EST

To: "GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)"
<gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>



  


Here are the RySG recommendations to the WG with regard to policy
recommendations.  David & I look forward to answering any questions and
discussing the recommendations further on list and in our meeting this
coming week. 

  






Chuck Gomes
Vice President 


cgomes at verisign.com
t: +1 530 676-1754  m: +1 703 362-8753
VerisignInc.com ( http://www.verisigninc.com/ ) 

  

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately. 

  




  

  

  

?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.? 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130423/8ec6e287/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Apr 23 17:42:20 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:42:20 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] RySG Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E2437EFE8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E2437EFE8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <7E3D91F9-AB85-4303-BEB6-6B60F7AA8A8F@acm.org>

Hi,

Re the recommendations: my personal views and the views I will argue for within the NCSG while it debates its position:

> RySG Policy Recommendations
> 
> a.     As a basis for possible protection of full names:
>                         i.         Use the GAC lists of full names for the IOC & RCRC at the top and second levels
>                        ii.         Use the GAC list of full IGO names (those eligible for inclusion in the .int list) at the top and second levels

I still have not seen the legal reason for supporting this.  As we were told, while there may be jurisdictions within which some of these might be treated as protected, that is by no means universal.  In those areas where a registry and registrar is prevented by local law from offering such names they should not do so.  I have not seen a policy reason, other than placating the GAC, which says we have no right to make policy in this area, for creating policy around special privileges for these names.

Having said that, the pragmatics of the situation where the Board has already approved these special privileges, in a so-called temporary manner, I figure opposing this is a lost cause.

> b.     Require applicable IGOs to apply for protection of their full names at the top and/or second levels prior to finalizing the list of qualifying organizations that would receive protection

Against what standards would these applications be made?   If we are going to allow people to apply for special protection for their names we have to take the widest possible approach to this and allow every NGO and charitable institution the same privileges.

> c.     As a basis for possible protection of acronyms of IOC, RCRC and IGO names, modify new gTLD rights protection mechanisms (TM Clearinghouse, URS & UDRP) as applicable to include acronyms of the protected names from a. above so that such acronyms could be included in both sunrise and claims processes in the same way as trademarks in the TMCH.

While I support the inclusion of names into the TMCH for the organizations requesting special privileges, I do not accept the inclusion of acronyms.  As has been shown, these have too many other possible meanings and uses. 

I do support the use of URDP and URS by these organizations and support the expansion of UDRP and URS as needed to add these special protection privileges as a reason for use of UDRP and URS.

> d.     Provide an exception process whereby an organization not covered by any protections but having legitimate rights could apply for a protected name

I do not support any form of exemption for names on a reserved list except the RSEP process.  Certainly within the RSEP process, the evidence of the privileged party should be taken into account, but only if it can be definitely shown and guaranteeed that no compensation either direct or indirect has been, or will be, given for the permission.  

> e.     Allow protected organizations to apply for their names at the top level and/or second levels

I only support use of the RESP process as means of allowing a name on a reserved list to be registered.  

I do not support the creation of new mechansims for such reserved list registrations.

A question I ask, if we allow a designated agency to register 'its' reserved names, what is to stop it from then transferring that registration to a rich donor for a significant consideration.  Do we also need to put special condition in the IRTP process for these once reserved names?  Do we already have a defined process in the policy for a permanently non transferable name? Or would we need to create such a policy? (After years in the IRTP-x WGs I should know this but don't.  I know the state could probably be set, but could it be deemed permanent and immutable? )

> f.      Modify the TMCH to include protected organization full names.

I support this.

I thank the RySG for making the recommendations so easy to address.

avri


On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>  
> Here are the RySG recommendations to the WG with regard to policy recommendations.  David & I look forward to answering any questions and discussing the recommendations further on list and in our meeting this coming week.
>  
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President
> 
> cgomes at verisign.com
> t: +1 530 676-1754  m: +1 703 362-8753
> VerisignInc.com
>  
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.?
> <IGO INGO PDP WG RySG Recommendations 20 Apr 2013.docx>




From robin  Tue Apr 23 19:34:59 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:34:59 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <51728AE40200005B000A7972@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <51728AE40200005B000A7972@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <B909BD02-AB5A-4555-85C3-22491F3EEA75@ipjustice.org>

Hi Mary,

Picking up on the good work you did on the first ATRT, would you be  
willing to shepherd the NCSG's input into the ATRT? I think our  
deadline is 2 May.

I don't believe there is currently a public comment period on the GAC  
Communique, although I've heard calls for one so we might see one.   
In any event, NCSG should issue a statement on the GAC communique,  
since it attempts to re-write community consensus policy and asks  
ICANN to regulate content on the Internet.   Let's give the board- 
staff a little support to stand up to the GAC at long last.

Thanks,
Robin


On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:32 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>  
<Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> Following up on a brief conversation with Avri and Robin in  
> Beijing, here's the original NCUC comment I sent in responding to  
> the initial ATRT recommendations, way back in (I think) 2011. There  
> may (or may not) be something there that we can build on, e.g.  
> things not yet done or adequate, to give as feedback to ATRT2, esp.  
> given the timing at the moment.
>
>
> On the GAC communique, there's no formal public comment period open  
> yet, is there? I know a window's been open for applicants  
> themselves to respond formally/directly to the GAC. Does the PC  
> wish to send a letter to the GAC?
>
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
> 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
>
>>>> Robin Gross  04/20/13 9:16 AM >>>
> Oops, forgot a biggie:
>
> 8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the  
> Internet
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the
>> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
>> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>>
>> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
>> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad
>> and he would re-work it.
>> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
>> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
>> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
>> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it
>> "implementation"
>>
>> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
>> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>>
>> 4.  WHOIS
>> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy
>> compliance with international privacy laws
>>
>> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
>> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name
>> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>>
>> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network
>> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>>
>> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts
>> and academics next
>>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide
>> names of recommended participants, etc.
>>
>> 8.  What else???
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <NCUC comment on ATRT  
> recommendations.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130423/f579b6ba/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Apr 23 20:52:33 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:52:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Final 2013 RAA - Comment period
	open
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD33765C522@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD33765C522@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5176CA61.30701@seltzer.com>

Here's where we'll want to put our Registrants' Rights:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Proposed Final 2013 RAA - Comment period open
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:01:36 -0700
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: council at gnso.icann.org List <council at gnso.icann.org>

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr13-en.htm
Proposed Final 2013 RAA
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date:
22 April 2013
Comment Close Date:
13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date:
14 May 2013
Reply Close Date:
4 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr13-en.htm>
To Submit Your Comments
(Forum)<mailto:comments-proposed-raa-22apr13 at icann.org>
View Comments
Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-22apr13/>
Brief Overview
Originating Organization:
ICANN
Categories/Tags:

 *   Contracted Party Agreements
Purpose (Brief):

ICANN is seeking public comments on the Proposed Final 2013 Registrar
Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This is the culmination of 18 months of
intensive negotiations.
Current Status:

ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team commenced negotiation on
amendments to the RAA in October 2011. Since the 7 March 2013 version
was posted, ICANN and the Registrars (through the Registrar Negotiating
Team) continued to reach agreement on the proposed text of the 2013 RAA,
which is now posted for community comment.
Next Steps:

After review of the comment received, the Proposed Final 2013 RAA will
be reviewed to determine if further changes are warranted. Input on the
areas that have changed since the 7 March 2013 posting will be of
particular help.
Staff Contact:
Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel
Email Staff
Contact<mailto:samantha.eisner at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Final%202013%20RAA%20public%20comment%20period>
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

After an extended period of negotiations, ICANN is posting a proposed
2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for public comment.

On 7 March 2013, ICANN posted its version of the 2013 RAA for public
comment, noting some areas of disagreement between ICANN and the
Registrar Negotiating Team (NT). In addition, some of the specifications
posted for comment were ICANN versions only. Since the 7 March posting,
the Registrar NT has engaged in frequent negotiation sessions with ICANN
in order to bring to closure to all of the open negotiation topics and
to consider the community comments received from the 7 March posting. As
a result, at ICANN's public meeting in Beijing, ICANN and the Registrar
NT announced that they had reached agreement in principle on each of the
outstanding items highlighted in the March posting version. The
documents posted today reflect ICANN and the Registrar NT's agreements
and are the Proposed Final 2013 RAA. This proposed 2013 RAA is a
cornerstone of ICANN's efforts to work to improve the image of the
domain industry and to protect registrants through a further updated
contractual framework. It is ICANN's intention to have the 2013 RAA
completed and approved in the near future for use in the New gTLD Program.

To allow for transparency into the proposed final version of the 2013
RAA and community input on the changes from the 7 March posting, ICANN
is opening a full comment forum.

ICANN thanks the Registrar Negotiating Team (NT) for its continued
engagement in good faith negotiations on the RAA. The RAA posted today
reflects hard-fought concessions on many of key issues raised throughout
the negotiations.

A fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of
difference is available in ICANN's RAA Posting
Memorandum<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 65 KB].
Section II: Background:

The current round of negotiations over the RAA began in October 2011.
ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have presented updates to the
community at each of ICANN's public meetings since that time.
Information on the history of the negotiations, including previously
released documentation, is available at the community wiki at
https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement.
This includes the group of documents posted in June 2012, which
demonstrated the progress to date in the negotiations.
Section III: Document and Resource Links:

There are multiple documents for review as part of this posting. The new
RAA is anticipated to be a base document with a series of specifications
attached. Each specification is an integral, enforceable component of
the RAA. This posting includes all documents that are currently
anticipated to be part of the 2013 RAA. As noted above, a fuller
discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of difference is
available in ICANN's RAA Posting
Memorandum<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 65 KB]. A
summary<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/le-recommendations-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 59 KB] of how the 12 law enforcement recommendations are
incorporated into the RAA is also provided.

The base RAA documents:

 *   Proposed 2013
RAA<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 311 KB]
 *   Redline Showing Changes Between Proposed 2013 RAA and 7 March 2013
RAA
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 293 KB]
 *   Redline Showing Changes Between Proposed 2013 RAA and the 2009
RAA<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-21may09-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 343 KB]
 *   A Summary of Changes from the 2009
RAA<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-summary-changes-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 496 KB] is also available.

The Proposed Specifications and Addendums:
Consensus and Temporary Policy
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-temporary-policy-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 90 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from June 2012
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-temporary-policy-03jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 145 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-temporary-policy-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 161 KB]

Data Retention
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 77 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from June 2012
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-03jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 113 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 120 KB]

Whois Accuracy Program
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 86 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from June 2012
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-03jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 121 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 115 KB]

Whois
SLA<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 93 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 169 KB]

Specification on Proxy/Privacy
Services<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 57 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 110 KB]

Registrant Rights and Responsibilities
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 50 KB]

No changes since March 2013 posting

Additional Registrar Operation
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-operation-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 73 KB]

No changes since March 2013 posting

Registrar Information
Specification<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-information-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 64 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-information-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 128 KB]

Compliance
Certificate<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certificate-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 55 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certificate-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 92 KB]

Transition
Addendum<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-addendum-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 61 KB]

Redline Showing Changes from March 2013
Posting<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-addendum-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 105 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information:

A Report of the Public Comments submitted in response to the 7 March
2013 posting of the RAA is available
here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-22apr13-en.pdf>
[PDF, 178 KB].

________________________________
Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>







From robin  Tue Apr 23 23:35:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:35:31 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <B909BD02-AB5A-4555-85C3-22491F3EEA75@ipjustice.org>
References: <51728AE40200005B000A7972@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<B909BD02-AB5A-4555-85C3-22491F3EEA75@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3DB48C21-75BE-401F-A097-A9A650C1D7A0@ipjustice.org>

Okay, now there is a public comment forum opening on the GAC communique.
  http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23apr13-en.htm

Initial comment period closes 14 May.  Reply comment period closes 4  
June 2013.

We'll need to be sure to get some comments in.

Thanks,
Robin


On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Hi Mary,
>
> Picking up on the good work you did on the first ATRT, would you be  
> willing to shepherd the NCSG's input into the ATRT? I think our  
> deadline is 2 May.
>
> I don't believe there is currently a public comment period on the  
> GAC Communique, although I've heard calls for one so we might see  
> one.  In any event, NCSG should issue a statement on the GAC  
> communique, since it attempts to re-write community consensus  
> policy and asks ICANN to regulate content on the Internet.   Let's  
> give the board-staff a little support to stand up to the GAC at  
> long last.
>
> Thanks
> Robin
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:32 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>  
> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
>
>> Following up on a brief conversation with Avri and Robin in  
>> Beijing, here's the original NCUC comment I sent in responding to  
>> the initial ATRT recommendations, way back in (I think) 2011.  
>> There may (or may not) be something there that we can build on,  
>> e.g. things not yet done or adequate, to give as feedback to  
>> ATRT2, esp. given the timing at the moment.
>>
>>
>> On the GAC communique, there's no formal public comment period  
>> open yet, is there? I know a window's been open for applicants  
>> themselves to respond formally/directly to the GAC. Does the PC  
>> wish to send a letter to the GAC?
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
>> 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
>>
>>>>> Robin Gross  04/20/13 9:16 AM >>>
>> Oops, forgot a biggie:
>>
>> 8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the  
>> Internet
>>
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the
>>> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
>>> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>>>
>>> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
>>> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad
>>> and he would re-work it.
>>> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
>>> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
>>> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
>>> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it
>>> "implementation"
>>>
>>> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
>>> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>>>
>>> 4.  WHOIS
>>> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy
>>> compliance with international privacy laws
>>>
>>> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
>>> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name
>>> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>>>
>>> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network
>>> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>>>
>>> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts
>>> and academics next
>>>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide
>>> names of recommended participants, etc.
>>>
>>> 8.  What else???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <NCUC comment on ATRT  
>> recommendations.docx>_______________________________________________
>> 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




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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130423/124e00f5/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Apr 23 23:37:22 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:37:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] taking stock from ICANN#46 in Beijing // listing
	volunteers
In-Reply-To: <3DB48C21-75BE-401F-A097-A9A650C1D7A0@ipjustice.org>
References: <51728AE40200005B000A7972@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<B909BD02-AB5A-4555-85C3-22491F3EEA75@ipjustice.org>
	<3DB48C21-75BE-401F-A097-A9A650C1D7A0@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5176F102.5060303@seltzer.com>

I've started a listing of issues and volunteers, based on Robin's
initial list.

Please add to the list or volunteer at http://pad.ncuc.org/p/ICANN46post

--Wendy

On 04/23/2013 04:35 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Okay, now there is a public comment forum opening on the GAC communique.
>  http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23apr13-en.htm
> 
> Initial comment period closes 14 May.  Reply comment period closes 4
> June 2013.
> 
> We'll need to be sure to get some comments in.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mary,
>>
>> Picking up on the good work you did on the first ATRT, would you be
>> willing to shepherd the NCSG's input into the ATRT? I think our
>> deadline is 2 May.
>>
>> I don't believe there is currently a public comment period on the GAC
>> Communique, although I've heard calls for one so we might see one.  In
>> any event, NCSG should issue a statement on the GAC communique, since
>> it attempts to re-write community consensus policy and asks ICANN to
>> regulate content on the Internet.   Let's give the board-staff a
>> little support to stand up to the GAC at long last.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:32 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
>> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Following up on a brief conversation with Avri and Robin in Beijing,
>>> here's the original NCUC comment I sent in responding to the initial
>>> ATRT recommendations, way back in (I think) 2011. There may (or may
>>> not) be something there that we can build on, e.g. things not yet
>>> done or adequate, to give as feedback to ATRT2, esp. given the timing
>>> at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the GAC communique, there's no formal public comment period open
>>> yet, is there? I know a window's been open for applicants themselves
>>> to respond formally/directly to the GAC. Does the PC wish to send a
>>> letter to the GAC?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Mary
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary W S Wong
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>> Robin Gross  04/20/13 9:16 AM >>>
>>> Oops, forgot a biggie:
>>>
>>> 8.  NCSG response to GAC communique to regulate content on the Internet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>>> A few lose-ends from Beijing to follow-up on.   Comments on the
>>>> below and volunteers to follow-up on these issues are most welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities
>>>> Is there a draft ready for consideration by the NCSG-PC?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Trademark Clearinghouse "TM+50"
>>>> Note: Fadi said at end of mtg he knew substance of TM+50 was bad
>>>> and he would re-work it.
>>>> a.  NCSG statement - can we issue one?
>>>> b.  Request for reconsideration of staff decision ready to file
>>>> c.  Joint stmt with ALAC in the works - we can do this soon!
>>>> d.  Letter from GNSO Council should not state staff called it
>>>> "implementation"
>>>>
>>>> 3.  ATRT2 Comments
>>>> We need to get some in by 2 May 2013
>>>>
>>>> 4.  WHOIS
>>>> Proposal to request an Issues Report leading to PDP on ICANN policy
>>>> compliance with international privacy laws
>>>>
>>>> 5.  WHOIS Expert Working Group
>>>> Need examples of scenarios for why you need anonymous domain name
>>>> registration (Stephanie Perrin requested)
>>>>
>>>> 6.  Fadi wants proposal "in writing" to join Global Network
>>>> Initiative (is that the right name?)
>>>>
>>>> 7.  Fadi said he will organize a roundtable with privacy experts
>>>> and academics next
>>>>  - we should follow-up and re-offer to facilitate the mtg - provide
>>>> names of recommended participants, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 8.  What else???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <NCUC comment on ATRT
>>> recommendations.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
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/