[PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
Robin Gross
robin
Wed Apr 10 18:32:15 EEST 2013
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>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list