[PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC

Avri Doria avri
Wed Aug 28 02:19:00 EEST 2013 

Hi,

Went through your comments.

You had a question:

> The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.
> 
> RG: I don?t understand what this is actually recommending.


The recommendation include the recommendation that the petitioners (RCRC, IGO, INGO) be able to use the URS and UDRP.  But these are trademark oriented and would be augmented to include provision for IGO/INGO that are on the list.

Useless to say that the URS and UDRP methods can be used so you dont need blocking, if they cant use these mechanisms.

And, my questions

You not only want the RCRC blocking removed (the NCSG general position) but you don't want them to get the TMCh, URS and UDRP capabilities we are recommending for IGO/INGO?

As you know I am for removing the IOC from all protections, but I thought there was some merit in the RCRC case given Geneva Conventions, other international law and a variety of national laws actually protecting their names.  I agree that nothing should be blocked on this.  But to deny them recourse to TMCH, URS and UDRP seems harsh.

My reason for recommending the fee waiver for INGO is:
- TMCH, URS, and UDRP are money making processes.  They should not making money off of NGOs
- the ones that deserve to be covered (not all on the ECOSOC list but many of them) can't afford these fees.

My reason for supporting it for IGO:
- I have been arguing for parity between IGO and INGO.

avri





On 27 Aug 2013, at 17:47, Robin Gross wrote:

> Thanks, Avri!
> 
> I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.  Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.  (Attached).  It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.  
> 
> So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.  Thanks much!
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc>
> 
> 
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
>> 
>> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
>>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>> 
>>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>>>> 
>>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>>>> 
>>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>>>> 
>>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list