From robin  Sun Jun  2 21:23:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 11:23:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposed draft agenda for the GNSO
	Council meeting on 13 June at 11:00UTC.
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD3379290B0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <09EEF80F-81F0-48E9-BBCF-54F7F4A8FD5F@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 June at 11:00UTC. 
> Date: May 31, 2013 2:29:40 PM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> FYI
> Dear Councillors,
> Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 June at 11:00UTC. 
> Please remember that the deadlines for submitting motions is Monday, 3 June at 23:59 UTC.
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 13 June 2013
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13jun13-en.htm
> motions:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-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 11:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 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.
> 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:
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May 2013
> Item 2: Opening remarks from the 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 - To Adopt Revised GNSO Council Operating Procedures (10 minutes)
> The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity.  The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.
> 
> Motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion of motion.
> 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH).
> Item 5: MOTION ? TBC (10 minutes)
> Motion
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 5.1 Reading of the motion
> 5.2 Discussion of motion.
> 5.3 Vote
> 
> Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
> A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> After consulting with the Expert Working Group (EWG), staff recommends that a PDP be initiated because the work of the PDP Team will help inform the work of the EWG.
> Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report 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.
> An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP. 
> 6.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 6.2 Discussion
> 6.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)
> Item 7: DISCUSSION ? Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15 mins)
> On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published.  Concerns have been raised within the Council about:
> The nature of the response to this particular request.  Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model.
> More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.
> The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model.
> Item 8: DISCUSSION ? Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15 mins)
> As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review.  In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps.  One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review.
> Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG.
> Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins)
> During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 
>  
> Ideally, input is requested on:
> a)    Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
> b)    Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
> c)     c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
>  
> Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).
>  
> At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may13-en.pdf
> 
> 9.1 Discussion
> 9.2 Next steps ? Any additional action to be taken?
> 9.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)
> Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Durban (20 minutes)
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning.  GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort.
> The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council?s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 10.1 ? Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 10.2 ? Discussion
> 10.3 ? Next steps
> Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> 
> 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 11:00 UTC
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 04:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1DST12:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> For other times see:
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
>  
>  
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130602/1b6465a4/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jun  5 14:30:39 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:30:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] upcoming comment.reply end in the next week
Message-ID: <7664F1BE-3355-42A0-9246-332E20966428@acm.org>


Questions to the Community on Accountability and Transparency within ICANN

FY14 Community Travel Support Guidelines 

Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement 


is anyone working on any of these?






From avri  Wed Jun  5 15:32:57 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:32:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report
	for IGO/INGO PDP WG
In-Reply-To: <60D95650-B0A2-4E96-A9CE-515C3604793F@acm.org>
References: <CDCBD89F.9C7F%brian.peck@icann.org>
	<60D95650-B0A2-4E96-A9CE-515C3604793F@acm.org>
Message-ID: <68D26AA8-AFDD-4653-9C46-4D7E71121A99@acm.org>

Hi,

Finally finished my read through.
A few comments, but not many.
Again, apologies for the delay.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Initial_Report_v0.8.6.1-1+ad.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 207445 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130605/36093da2/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------



On 5 Jun 2013, at 07:38, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> On 29 May 2013, at 19:38, Brian Peck wrote:
> 
>> Input Deadline:  3 June 23:59 UTC
>> Next Meeting:    5 June 16:00 UTC
>> 
> 
> 
> I missed the deadline, though I am reviewing the document.  Was hoping to at least be done by the meeting, plan to attend, but don't think I will make it - though will be close.
> 
> But with the deadline gone, am I wasting my belated time writing comments in this doc?
> 
> I do apologize, but the last 3 weeks in Geneva (WTPF/IGF/HRC/WGEC) were a whirlwind for me where I did not do half of things I wanted to do.  I feel guilty about not getting to IGO/INGO but I didn't.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From Mary.Wong  Wed Jun  5 18:26:07 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:26:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] upcoming comment.reply end in the next week
In-Reply-To: <7664F1BE-3355-42A0-9246-332E20966428@acm.org>
References: <7664F1BE-3355-42A0-9246-332E20966428@acm.org>
Message-ID: <51AF204F0200005B000AAA00@smtp.law.unh.edu>


I'd drafted something very brief for the ATRT2 comment period (though they are not answers to the questions, unfortunately) and sent it around NCUC leadership; waiting for feedback but I can send it directly to NCSG PC (i.e. this group) in the interests of time. 

Plowing through the new RA now. 

Haven't done anything about the Travel Support Guidelines. 

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:  
6/5/2013 7:31 AM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] upcoming comment.reply end in the next week 


Questions to the Community on Accountability and Transparency within ICANN

FY14 Community Travel Support Guidelines

Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement


is anyone working on any of these?




_______________________________________________
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/20130605/d201994c/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Jun  5 20:21:50 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 10:21:50 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] we need to challenge the daft BGC recommendation that
	ICANN staff can over-rule the community on policy decisions
Message-ID: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>

NCSG-PC Members:

I'd like to propose that we request a meeting with the Board Governance Committee to discuss its recommendation on our request for consideration and its underlying rationale which has major implications for the bottom-up policy development model.  The recommendation was obviously drafted by legal counsel (probably the same legal counsel who drafted the policy we are challenging).   And if it stands it does mean there is no bottom-up policy development at ICANN - it is a huge power grab by ICANN staff to take policy development entirely away from the community and put it in their unaccountable hands.  Even folks like Jeff Neuman who do not have an opinion on the underlying TM+50 issue are terribly concerned for what the recommendation means for the entire bottom-up policy model ICANN claims to champion.

I also think we should file for an Independent Review of the decision - since its daft logic will not be so easily swallowed by an independent arbiter.  So we need to develop a plan for challenging this BGC recommendation and put it into action quickly.  I know Ed has done some initial research on this for us.

Any thoughts, suggestions, comments on this?

Thanks,
Robin


http://domainincite.com/13136-the-true-historie-of-trademark50-and-the-deathe-of-the-gnso-parte-the-thirde

The True Historie of Trademark+50 and the Deathe of the GNSO (Parte the Thirde)

Kevin Murphy, May 28, 2013, 13:44:03 (UTC), Domain Policy
ICANN?s decision to press ahead with the ?Trademark+50? trademark protection mechanism over the objections of much of the community may not be the end of the controversy.

Some in the Generic Names Supporting Organization are even complaining that ICANN?s rejection of a recent challenge to the proposal may ?fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model?.

Trademark+50 is the recently devised adjunct to the suite of rights protection mechanisms created specially for the new gTLD program.

It will enable trademark owners to add up to 50 strings to each record they have in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where those strings have been previously ruled abusive under UDRP.

Once in the TMCH, they will generate Trademark Claims notices for both the trademark owner and the would-be registrant of the matching domain name during the first 60 days of general availability in each new gTLD.

Guinness, for example, will be able to add ?guinness-sucks? to its TMCH record for ?Guinness? because it has previously won guinness-sucks.com in a UDRP decision.

If somebody then tries to register guinness-sucks.beer, they?ll get a warning that they may be about to infringe Guinness? trademark rights. If they go ahead and register anyway, Guinness will also get an alert.

Trademark+50 was created jointly by ICANN?s Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency late last year as one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen rights protection in new gTLDs.

They then managed to persuade CEO Fadi Chehade, who was at the time still pretty new and didn?t fully appreciate the history of conflict over these issues, to convene a series of invitation-only meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles to try to get other community members to agree to the proposals.

These meetings came up with the ?strawman solution?, a list of proposed changes to the program?s rights protection mechanisms.

Until two weeks ago, when DI managed to get ICANN to publish a transcript and audio recording of the LA meetings, what was said during these meetings was shrouded in a certain degree of secrecy.

I don?t know why. Having listened to the 20-hour recording, I can tell you there was very little said that you wouldn?t hear during a regular on-the-record public ICANN meeting.

Everyone appeared to act in good faith, bringing new ideas and suggestions to the table in an attempt to find a solution that was acceptable to all.

The strongest resistance to the strawman came, in my view, from the very small number (only one remained by the end) of non-commercial interests who had been invited, and from the registrars.

The non-coms were worried about the ?chilling effect? of expanding trademark rights, while registrars were worried that they would end up carrying the cost of supporting confused or frightened registrants.

What did emerge during the LA meeting was quite a heated discussion about whether the IPC/BC proposals should be considered merely ?implementation? details or the creation of new ?policy?.

That debate spilled over into 2013.

Under the very strictest definition of ?policy?, it could be argued that pretty much every aspect of every new rights protection mechanism in the Applicant Guidebook is ?implementation?.

The only hard policy the GNSO came up with on trademarks in new gTLDs was back in 2008. It reads:

Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.

Pretty much everything that has come since has been cobbled together from community discussions, ad hoc working groups, ICANN staff ?synthesis? of public comments, and board action.

But many in the ICANN community ? mainly registries, registrars and non-commercial interests ? say that anything that appears to create new rights and/or imposes significant new burdens on the industry should be considered ?policy?.

During the LA meetings, there was broad agreement that stuff like extending Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days and instituting a mandatory 30-day notice period before each Sunrise period was ?implementation?.

Those changes won?t really incur any major new costs for the industry; they merely tweak systems that already have broad, if sometimes grudging, community support.

But the attendees were split (IPC/BC on the one side, most everyone else on the other) about whether Trademark+50, among other items, was new policy or just an implementation detail.

If something is ?policy? there are community processes to deal with it. If it?s implementation it can be turned over to ICANN staff and forgotten.

Because the registries and registrars have an effective veto on GNSO policy-making and tend to vote as a bloc, many others view a ?policy? label as a death sentence for something they want done.

A month after the strawman meetings, in early December, ICANN staff produced a briefing paper on the strawman solution (pdf) for public comment. Describing what we?re now calling Trademark+50, the paper stated quite unambiguously (it seemed at the time):

The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.

Chehade had previously ? before the strawman meetings ? strongly suggested in a letter to members of the US Congress that Trademark+50 was not doable:

It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights.

Personally, I doubt then-new Chehade wrote the letter (at least, not without help). It mirrors Beckstrom-era arguments and language and contrasts with a lot of what he?s said since.

But it?s a pretty clear statement from ICANN?s CEO that the expansion of Trademark Claims to Trademark+50 night expand trademark rights and, implicitly, is not some throwaway implementation detail.

Nevertheless, a day after the staff briefing paper Chehade wrote to GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson in early December to ask for ?policy guidance? on the proposal.

Again, there was a strong suggestion that ICANN was viewing Trademark+50 as a policy issue that would probably require GNSO input.

Robinson replied at the end of February, after some very difficult GNSO Council discussions, saying ?the majority of the council feels that is proposal is best addressed as a policy concern?.

The IPC disagreed with this majority view, no doubt afraid that a ?policy? tag would lead to Trademark+50 being gutted by the other GNSO constituencies over the space of months or years.

But despite ICANN staff, most of the GNSO Council and apparently Chehade himself concluding that Trademark+50 was policy, staff did a U-turn in March and decided to go ahead with Trademark+50 after all.

An unsigned March 20 staff report states:

Having reviewed and balanced all feedback, this proposal appears to be a reasonable add-on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service.

?

It is difficult to justify omission of a readily available mechanism which would strengthen the trademark protection available through the Clearinghouse. Given that the proposal relies on determinations that have already been made independently through established processes, and that the scope of protection is bounded by this, concerns about undue expansion of rights do not seem necessary.

This caught the GNSO off-guard; Trademark+50 had looked like it was going down the policy track and all of a sudden it was a pressing reality of implementation.

Outraged, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which had been the strongest (if smallest through no fault of their own) voice against the proposal during the strawman meetings filed a formal Reconsideration Request (pdf) with ICANN.

Reconsideration Requests are one of the oversight mechanisms built into ICANN?s bylaws. They?re adjudicated by ICANN?s own Board Governance Committee and never succeed.

In its request, the NCSG told a pretty similar history to the one I?ve just finished relating and asked the BGC to overturn the staff decision to treat Trademark+50 as implementation.

The NCSG notes, rightly, that just because a domain has been lost at UDRP the string itself is not necessarily inherently abusive. To win a UDRP a complainant must also demonstrate the registrant?s bad faith and lack of rights to the string at issue.

To return to the earlier example, when notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini ? an unambiguously bad guy ? registered guinness-sucks.com back in 2000 he told Guinness he?d done it just to piss them off.

That doesn?t mean guinness-sucks.beer is inherently bad, however. In many jurisdictions I would be well within my rights to register the domain to host a site criticizing the filthy brown muck.

But if I try to register the name, I?m going to get a Trademark Claims notice asking me to verify that I?m not going to infringe Guinness? legal rights and advising me to consult a lawyer.

Chilling effect? Maybe. My own view is that many people will just click through the notice as easily as they click through the Ts&Cs on any other web site or piece of software.

Either way, I won?t be able to claim in court that I?d never heard of GuinnessTM, should the company ever decide to sue me.

Anyway, the NCSG?s Reconsideration Request failed. On May 16 the BGC issued a 15-page determination (pdf) denying it.

It?s this document that?s causing consternation and death-of-the-GNSO mutterings right now.

Last week, Neustar?s lead ICANN wonk Jeff Neuman asked for the Reconsideration Request to be put on the agenda of the GNSO Council?s June 13 meeting. He wants BGC representatives to join the call too. He wrote:

This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.

He has support from other councilors.

I suspect the registries that Neuman represents on the Council are not so much concerned with Trademark+50 itself, more with the way ICANN has forced the issue through over their objections.

The registries, remember, are already nervous as hell about the possibility of ICANN taking unilateral action to amend their contracts in future, and bad decision-making practices now may set bad precedents.

But Neuman has a point about the legalistic way in which the Reconsideration Request was handled. I spotted a fair few examples in the decision of what can only be described as, frankly, lawyer bullshit.

For example, the NCSG used Chehade?s letter to Congress as an example of why Trademark+50 should be and was being considered ?policy?, but the BGC deliberately misses the point in its response, stating:

The NCSG fails to explain, however, is how ICANN policy can be created through a proclamation in a letter to Congress without following ICANN policy development procedures. To be clear, ICANN cannot create policy in this fashion.

Only a lawyer could come up with this kind of pedantic misinterpretation.

The NCSG wasn?t arguing that Chehade?s letter to Congress created a new policy, it was arguing that he was explaining an existing policy. It was attempting to say ?Hey, even Fadi thought this was policy.?

Strike two: the NCSG had also pointed to the aforementioned staff determination, since reversed, that Trademark+50 was a policy matter, but the BCG?s response was, again, legalistic.

It noted that staff only said Trademark+50 ?can? be considered a policy matter (rather than ?is?, one assumes), again ignoring the full context of the document.

In context, both the Chehade letter and the March staff document make specific reference to the fact that the Implementation Recommendation Team had decided back in 2009 that only strings that exactly match trademarks should be protected. But the BGC does not mention the IRT once in its decision.

Strike three: the BGC response discounted Chehade?s request for GNSO ?policy guidance? as an ?inartful phrase?. He wasn?t really saying it was a policy matter, apparently. No.

Taken as a whole, the BGC rejection of the Reconsideration Request comes across like it was written by somebody trying to justify a fait accompli, trying to make the rationale fit the decision.

In my view, Trademark+50 is quite a sensible compromise proposal with little serious downside.

I think it will help trademark owners lower their enforcement costs and the impact on registrars, registries and registrants? rights is likely to be minimal.

But the way it?s being levered through ICANN ? unnecessarily secretive discussions followed by badly explained U-turns ? looks dishonest.

It doesn?t come across like ICANN is playing fair, no matter how noble its intentions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130605/52b6e982/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Jun  5 20:30:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 10:30:31 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] we need to challenge the daft BGC recommendation that
	ICANN staff can over-rule the community on policy decisions
In-Reply-To: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>
References: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DEE2D3CB-14F7-4CF7-A50B-AC06855A924F@ipjustice.org>

..... I should add that we need to make that request to BGC for a discussion very soon.  The recommendation is on the board's agenda to be rubber stamped on 11 June:
 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14630.html

(not sure why it is on the agenda of the new gtld program cmte and not the entire board though)



On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> NCSG-PC Members:
> 
> I'd like to propose that we request a meeting with the Board Governance Committee to discuss its recommendation on our request for consideration and its underlying rationale which has major implications for the bottom-up policy development model.  The recommendation was obviously drafted by legal counsel (probably the same legal counsel who drafted the policy we are challenging).   And if it stands it does mean there is no bottom-up policy development at ICANN - it is a huge power grab by ICANN staff to take policy development entirely away from the community and put it in their unaccountable hands.  Even folks like Jeff Neuman who do not have an opinion on the underlying TM+50 issue are terribly concerned for what the recommendation means for the entire bottom-up policy model ICANN claims to champion.
> 
> I also think we should file for an Independent Review of the decision - since its daft logic will not be so easily swallowed by an independent arbiter.  So we need to develop a plan for challenging this BGC recommendation and put it into action quickly.  I know Ed has done some initial research on this for us.
> 
> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> http://domainincite.com/13136-the-true-historie-of-trademark50-and-the-deathe-of-the-gnso-parte-the-thirde
> 
> The True Historie of Trademark+50 and the Deathe of the GNSO (Parte the Thirde)
> 
> Kevin Murphy, May 28, 2013, 13:44:03 (UTC), Domain Policy
> ICANN?s decision to press ahead with the ?Trademark+50? trademark protection mechanism over the objections of much of the community may not be the end of the controversy.
> 
> Some in the Generic Names Supporting Organization are even complaining that ICANN?s rejection of a recent challenge to the proposal may ?fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model?.
> 
> Trademark+50 is the recently devised adjunct to the suite of rights protection mechanisms created specially for the new gTLD program.
> 
> It will enable trademark owners to add up to 50 strings to each record they have in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where those strings have been previously ruled abusive under UDRP.
> 
> Once in the TMCH, they will generate Trademark Claims notices for both the trademark owner and the would-be registrant of the matching domain name during the first 60 days of general availability in each new gTLD.
> 
> Guinness, for example, will be able to add ?guinness-sucks? to its TMCH record for ?Guinness? because it has previously won guinness-sucks.com in a UDRP decision.
> 
> If somebody then tries to register guinness-sucks.beer, they?ll get a warning that they may be about to infringe Guinness? trademark rights. If they go ahead and register anyway, Guinness will also get an alert.
> 
> Trademark+50 was created jointly by ICANN?s Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency late last year as one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen rights protection in new gTLDs.
> 
> They then managed to persuade CEO Fadi Chehade, who was at the time still pretty new and didn?t fully appreciate the history of conflict over these issues, to convene a series of invitation-only meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles to try to get other community members to agree to the proposals.
> 
> These meetings came up with the ?strawman solution?, a list of proposed changes to the program?s rights protection mechanisms.
> 
> Until two weeks ago, when DI managed to get ICANN to publish a transcript and audio recording of the LA meetings, what was said during these meetings was shrouded in a certain degree of secrecy.
> 
> I don?t know why. Having listened to the 20-hour recording, I can tell you there was very little said that you wouldn?t hear during a regular on-the-record public ICANN meeting.
> 
> Everyone appeared to act in good faith, bringing new ideas and suggestions to the table in an attempt to find a solution that was acceptable to all.
> 
> The strongest resistance to the strawman came, in my view, from the very small number (only one remained by the end) of non-commercial interests who had been invited, and from the registrars.
> 
> The non-coms were worried about the ?chilling effect? of expanding trademark rights, while registrars were worried that they would end up carrying the cost of supporting confused or frightened registrants.
> 
> What did emerge during the LA meeting was quite a heated discussion about whether the IPC/BC proposals should be considered merely ?implementation? details or the creation of new ?policy?.
> 
> That debate spilled over into 2013.
> 
> Under the very strictest definition of ?policy?, it could be argued that pretty much every aspect of every new rights protection mechanism in the Applicant Guidebook is ?implementation?.
> 
> The only hard policy the GNSO came up with on trademarks in new gTLDs was back in 2008. It reads:
> 
> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
> 
> Pretty much everything that has come since has been cobbled together from community discussions, ad hoc working groups, ICANN staff ?synthesis? of public comments, and board action.
> 
> But many in the ICANN community ? mainly registries, registrars and non-commercial interests ? say that anything that appears to create new rights and/or imposes significant new burdens on the industry should be considered ?policy?.
> 
> During the LA meetings, there was broad agreement that stuff like extending Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days and instituting a mandatory 30-day notice period before each Sunrise period was ?implementation?.
> 
> Those changes won?t really incur any major new costs for the industry; they merely tweak systems that already have broad, if sometimes grudging, community support.
> 
> But the attendees were split (IPC/BC on the one side, most everyone else on the other) about whether Trademark+50, among other items, was new policy or just an implementation detail.
> 
> If something is ?policy? there are community processes to deal with it. If it?s implementation it can be turned over to ICANN staff and forgotten.
> 
> Because the registries and registrars have an effective veto on GNSO policy-making and tend to vote as a bloc, many others view a ?policy? label as a death sentence for something they want done.
> 
> A month after the strawman meetings, in early December, ICANN staff produced a briefing paper on the strawman solution (pdf) for public comment. Describing what we?re now calling Trademark+50, the paper stated quite unambiguously (it seemed at the time):
> 
> The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.
> 
> Chehade had previously ? before the strawman meetings ? strongly suggested in a letter to members of the US Congress that Trademark+50 was not doable:
> 
> It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights.
> 
> Personally, I doubt then-new Chehade wrote the letter (at least, not without help). It mirrors Beckstrom-era arguments and language and contrasts with a lot of what he?s said since.
> 
> But it?s a pretty clear statement from ICANN?s CEO that the expansion of Trademark Claims to Trademark+50 night expand trademark rights and, implicitly, is not some throwaway implementation detail.
> 
> Nevertheless, a day after the staff briefing paper Chehade wrote to GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson in early December to ask for ?policy guidance? on the proposal.
> 
> Again, there was a strong suggestion that ICANN was viewing Trademark+50 as a policy issue that would probably require GNSO input.
> 
> Robinson replied at the end of February, after some very difficult GNSO Council discussions, saying ?the majority of the council feels that is proposal is best addressed as a policy concern?.
> 
> The IPC disagreed with this majority view, no doubt afraid that a ?policy? tag would lead to Trademark+50 being gutted by the other GNSO constituencies over the space of months or years.
> 
> But despite ICANN staff, most of the GNSO Council and apparently Chehade himself concluding that Trademark+50 was policy, staff did a U-turn in March and decided to go ahead with Trademark+50 after all.
> 
> An unsigned March 20 staff report states:
> 
> Having reviewed and balanced all feedback, this proposal appears to be a reasonable add-on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service.
> 
> ?
> 
> It is difficult to justify omission of a readily available mechanism which would strengthen the trademark protection available through the Clearinghouse. Given that the proposal relies on determinations that have already been made independently through established processes, and that the scope of protection is bounded by this, concerns about undue expansion of rights do not seem necessary.
> 
> This caught the GNSO off-guard; Trademark+50 had looked like it was going down the policy track and all of a sudden it was a pressing reality of implementation.
> 
> Outraged, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which had been the strongest (if smallest through no fault of their own) voice against the proposal during the strawman meetings filed a formal Reconsideration Request (pdf) with ICANN.
> 
> Reconsideration Requests are one of the oversight mechanisms built into ICANN?s bylaws. They?re adjudicated by ICANN?s own Board Governance Committee and never succeed.
> 
> In its request, the NCSG told a pretty similar history to the one I?ve just finished relating and asked the BGC to overturn the staff decision to treat Trademark+50 as implementation.
> 
> The NCSG notes, rightly, that just because a domain has been lost at UDRP the string itself is not necessarily inherently abusive. To win a UDRP a complainant must also demonstrate the registrant?s bad faith and lack of rights to the string at issue.
> 
> To return to the earlier example, when notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini ? an unambiguously bad guy ? registered guinness-sucks.com back in 2000 he told Guinness he?d done it just to piss them off.
> 
> That doesn?t mean guinness-sucks.beer is inherently bad, however. In many jurisdictions I would be well within my rights to register the domain to host a site criticizing the filthy brown muck.
> 
> But if I try to register the name, I?m going to get a Trademark Claims notice asking me to verify that I?m not going to infringe Guinness? legal rights and advising me to consult a lawyer.
> 
> Chilling effect? Maybe. My own view is that many people will just click through the notice as easily as they click through the Ts&Cs on any other web site or piece of software.
> 
> Either way, I won?t be able to claim in court that I?d never heard of GuinnessTM, should the company ever decide to sue me.
> 
> Anyway, the NCSG?s Reconsideration Request failed. On May 16 the BGC issued a 15-page determination (pdf) denying it.
> 
> It?s this document that?s causing consternation and death-of-the-GNSO mutterings right now.
> 
> Last week, Neustar?s lead ICANN wonk Jeff Neuman asked for the Reconsideration Request to be put on the agenda of the GNSO Council?s June 13 meeting. He wants BGC representatives to join the call too. He wrote:
> 
> This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
> 
> He has support from other councilors.
> 
> I suspect the registries that Neuman represents on the Council are not so much concerned with Trademark+50 itself, more with the way ICANN has forced the issue through over their objections.
> 
> The registries, remember, are already nervous as hell about the possibility of ICANN taking unilateral action to amend their contracts in future, and bad decision-making practices now may set bad precedents.
> 
> But Neuman has a point about the legalistic way in which the Reconsideration Request was handled. I spotted a fair few examples in the decision of what can only be described as, frankly, lawyer bullshit.
> 
> For example, the NCSG used Chehade?s letter to Congress as an example of why Trademark+50 should be and was being considered ?policy?, but the BGC deliberately misses the point in its response, stating:
> 
> The NCSG fails to explain, however, is how ICANN policy can be created through a proclamation in a letter to Congress without following ICANN policy development procedures. To be clear, ICANN cannot create policy in this fashion.
> 
> Only a lawyer could come up with this kind of pedantic misinterpretation.
> 
> The NCSG wasn?t arguing that Chehade?s letter to Congress created a new policy, it was arguing that he was explaining an existing policy. It was attempting to say ?Hey, even Fadi thought this was policy.?
> 
> Strike two: the NCSG had also pointed to the aforementioned staff determination, since reversed, that Trademark+50 was a policy matter, but the BCG?s response was, again, legalistic.
> 
> It noted that staff only said Trademark+50 ?can? be considered a policy matter (rather than ?is?, one assumes), again ignoring the full context of the document.
> 
> In context, both the Chehade letter and the March staff document make specific reference to the fact that the Implementation Recommendation Team had decided back in 2009 that only strings that exactly match trademarks should be protected. But the BGC does not mention the IRT once in its decision.
> 
> Strike three: the BGC response discounted Chehade?s request for GNSO ?policy guidance? as an ?inartful phrase?. He wasn?t really saying it was a policy matter, apparently. No.
> 
> Taken as a whole, the BGC rejection of the Reconsideration Request comes across like it was written by somebody trying to justify a fait accompli, trying to make the rationale fit the decision.
> 
> In my view, Trademark+50 is quite a sensible compromise proposal with little serious downside.
> 
> I think it will help trademark owners lower their enforcement costs and the impact on registrars, registries and registrants? rights is likely to be minimal.
> 
> But the way it?s being levered through ICANN ? unnecessarily secretive discussions followed by badly explained U-turns ? looks dishonest.
> 
> It doesn?t come across like ICANN is playing fair, no matter how noble its intentions.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130605/46b23568/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jun  5 20:54:23 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:54:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] we need to challenge the daft BGC recommendation that
	ICANN staff can over-rule the community on policy decisions
In-Reply-To: <DEE2D3CB-14F7-4CF7-A50B-AC06855A924F@ipjustice.org>
References: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>
	<DEE2D3CB-14F7-4CF7-A50B-AC06855A924F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <E905962A-921B-4816-A14E-9E752073376B@ella.com>

good idea.

avri

On 5 Jun 2013, at 13:30, Robin Gross wrote:

> ..... I should add that we need to make that request to BGC for a discussion very soon.  The recommendation is on the board's agenda to be rubber stamped on 11 June:
>  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14630.html
> 
> (not sure why it is on the agenda of the new gtld program cmte and not the entire board though)
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> NCSG-PC Members:
>> 
>> I'd like to propose that we request a meeting with the Board Governance Committee to discuss its recommendation on our request for consideration and its underlying rationale which has major implications for the bottom-up policy development model.  The recommendation was obviously drafted by legal counsel (probably the same legal counsel who drafted the policy we are challenging).   And if it stands it does mean there is no bottom-up policy development at ICANN - it is a huge power grab by ICANN staff to take policy development entirely away from the community and put it in their unaccountable hands.  Even folks like Jeff Neuman who do not have an opinion on the underlying TM+50 issue are terribly concerned for what the recommendation means for the entire bottom-up policy model ICANN claims to champion.
>> 
>> I also think we should file for an Independent Review of the decision - since its daft logic will not be so easily swallowed by an independent arbiter.  So we need to develop a plan for challenging this BGC recommendation and put it into action quickly.  I know Ed has done some initial research on this for us.
>> 
>> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments on this?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> http://domainincite.com/13136-the-true-historie-of-trademark50-and-the-deathe-of-the-gnso-parte-the-thirde
>> 
>> The True Historie of Trademark+50 and the Deathe of the GNSO (Parte the Thirde)
>> 
>> Kevin Murphy, May 28, 2013, 13:44:03 (UTC), Domain Policy
>> ICANN?s decision to press ahead with the ?Trademark+50? trademark protection mechanism over the objections of much of the community may not be the end of the controversy.
>> 
>> Some in the Generic Names Supporting Organization are even complaining that ICANN?s rejection of a recent challenge to the proposal may ?fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model?.
>> 
>> Trademark+50 is the recently devised adjunct to the suite of rights protection mechanisms created specially for the new gTLD program.
>> 
>> It will enable trademark owners to add up to 50 strings to each record they have in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where those strings have been previously ruled abusive under UDRP.
>> 
>> Once in the TMCH, they will generate Trademark Claims notices for both the trademark owner and the would-be registrant of the matching domain name during the first 60 days of general availability in each new gTLD.
>> 
>> Guinness, for example, will be able to add ?guinness-sucks? to its TMCH record for ?Guinness? because it has previously won guinness-sucks.com in a UDRP decision.
>> 
>> If somebody then tries to register guinness-sucks.beer, they?ll get a warning that they may be about to infringe Guinness? trademark rights. If they go ahead and register anyway, Guinness will also get an alert.
>> 
>> Trademark+50 was created jointly by ICANN?s Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency late last year as one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen rights protection in new gTLDs.
>> 
>> They then managed to persuade CEO Fadi Chehade, who was at the time still pretty new and didn?t fully appreciate the history of conflict over these issues, to convene a series of invitation-only meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles to try to get other community members to agree to the proposals.
>> 
>> These meetings came up with the ?strawman solution?, a list of proposed changes to the program?s rights protection mechanisms.
>> 
>> Until two weeks ago, when DI managed to get ICANN to publish a transcript and audio recording of the LA meetings, what was said during these meetings was shrouded in a certain degree of secrecy.
>> 
>> I don?t know why. Having listened to the 20-hour recording, I can tell you there was very little said that you wouldn?t hear during a regular on-the-record public ICANN meeting.
>> 
>> Everyone appeared to act in good faith, bringing new ideas and suggestions to the table in an attempt to find a solution that was acceptable to all.
>> 
>> The strongest resistance to the strawman came, in my view, from the very small number (only one remained by the end) of non-commercial interests who had been invited, and from the registrars.
>> 
>> The non-coms were worried about the ?chilling effect? of expanding trademark rights, while registrars were worried that they would end up carrying the cost of supporting confused or frightened registrants.
>> 
>> What did emerge during the LA meeting was quite a heated discussion about whether the IPC/BC proposals should be considered merely ?implementation? details or the creation of new ?policy?.
>> 
>> That debate spilled over into 2013.
>> 
>> Under the very strictest definition of ?policy?, it could be argued that pretty much every aspect of every new rights protection mechanism in the Applicant Guidebook is ?implementation?.
>> 
>> The only hard policy the GNSO came up with on trademarks in new gTLDs was back in 2008. It reads:
>> 
>> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
>> 
>> Pretty much everything that has come since has been cobbled together from community discussions, ad hoc working groups, ICANN staff ?synthesis? of public comments, and board action.
>> 
>> But many in the ICANN community ? mainly registries, registrars and non-commercial interests ? say that anything that appears to create new rights and/or imposes significant new burdens on the industry should be considered ?policy?.
>> 
>> During the LA meetings, there was broad agreement that stuff like extending Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days and instituting a mandatory 30-day notice period before each Sunrise period was ?implementation?.
>> 
>> Those changes won?t really incur any major new costs for the industry; they merely tweak systems that already have broad, if sometimes grudging, community support.
>> 
>> But the attendees were split (IPC/BC on the one side, most everyone else on the other) about whether Trademark+50, among other items, was new policy or just an implementation detail.
>> 
>> If something is ?policy? there are community processes to deal with it. If it?s implementation it can be turned over to ICANN staff and forgotten.
>> 
>> Because the registries and registrars have an effective veto on GNSO policy-making and tend to vote as a bloc, many others view a ?policy? label as a death sentence for something they want done.
>> 
>> A month after the strawman meetings, in early December, ICANN staff produced a briefing paper on the strawman solution (pdf) for public comment. Describing what we?re now calling Trademark+50, the paper stated quite unambiguously (it seemed at the time):
>> 
>> The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.
>> 
>> Chehade had previously ? before the strawman meetings ? strongly suggested in a letter to members of the US Congress that Trademark+50 was not doable:
>> 
>> It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights.
>> 
>> Personally, I doubt then-new Chehade wrote the letter (at least, not without help). It mirrors Beckstrom-era arguments and language and contrasts with a lot of what he?s said since.
>> 
>> But it?s a pretty clear statement from ICANN?s CEO that the expansion of Trademark Claims to Trademark+50 night expand trademark rights and, implicitly, is not some throwaway implementation detail.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, a day after the staff briefing paper Chehade wrote to GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson in early December to ask for ?policy guidance? on the proposal.
>> 
>> Again, there was a strong suggestion that ICANN was viewing Trademark+50 as a policy issue that would probably require GNSO input.
>> 
>> Robinson replied at the end of February, after some very difficult GNSO Council discussions, saying ?the majority of the council feels that is proposal is best addressed as a policy concern?.
>> 
>> The IPC disagreed with this majority view, no doubt afraid that a ?policy? tag would lead to Trademark+50 being gutted by the other GNSO constituencies over the space of months or years.
>> 
>> But despite ICANN staff, most of the GNSO Council and apparently Chehade himself concluding that Trademark+50 was policy, staff did a U-turn in March and decided to go ahead with Trademark+50 after all.
>> 
>> An unsigned March 20 staff report states:
>> 
>> Having reviewed and balanced all feedback, this proposal appears to be a reasonable add-on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> It is difficult to justify omission of a readily available mechanism which would strengthen the trademark protection available through the Clearinghouse. Given that the proposal relies on determinations that have already been made independently through established processes, and that the scope of protection is bounded by this, concerns about undue expansion of rights do not seem necessary.
>> 
>> This caught the GNSO off-guard; Trademark+50 had looked like it was going down the policy track and all of a sudden it was a pressing reality of implementation.
>> 
>> Outraged, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which had been the strongest (if smallest through no fault of their own) voice against the proposal during the strawman meetings filed a formal Reconsideration Request (pdf) with ICANN.
>> 
>> Reconsideration Requests are one of the oversight mechanisms built into ICANN?s bylaws. They?re adjudicated by ICANN?s own Board Governance Committee and never succeed.
>> 
>> In its request, the NCSG told a pretty similar history to the one I?ve just finished relating and asked the BGC to overturn the staff decision to treat Trademark+50 as implementation.
>> 
>> The NCSG notes, rightly, that just because a domain has been lost at UDRP the string itself is not necessarily inherently abusive. To win a UDRP a complainant must also demonstrate the registrant?s bad faith and lack of rights to the string at issue.
>> 
>> To return to the earlier example, when notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini ? an unambiguously bad guy ? registered guinness-sucks.com back in 2000 he told Guinness he?d done it just to piss them off.
>> 
>> That doesn?t mean guinness-sucks.beer is inherently bad, however. In many jurisdictions I would be well within my rights to register the domain to host a site criticizing the filthy brown muck.
>> 
>> But if I try to register the name, I?m going to get a Trademark Claims notice asking me to verify that I?m not going to infringe Guinness? legal rights and advising me to consult a lawyer.
>> 
>> Chilling effect? Maybe. My own view is that many people will just click through the notice as easily as they click through the Ts&Cs on any other web site or piece of software.
>> 
>> Either way, I won?t be able to claim in court that I?d never heard of GuinnessTM, should the company ever decide to sue me.
>> 
>> Anyway, the NCSG?s Reconsideration Request failed. On May 16 the BGC issued a 15-page determination (pdf) denying it.
>> 
>> It?s this document that?s causing consternation and death-of-the-GNSO mutterings right now.
>> 
>> Last week, Neustar?s lead ICANN wonk Jeff Neuman asked for the Reconsideration Request to be put on the agenda of the GNSO Council?s June 13 meeting. He wants BGC representatives to join the call too. He wrote:
>> 
>> This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
>> 
>> He has support from other councilors.
>> 
>> I suspect the registries that Neuman represents on the Council are not so much concerned with Trademark+50 itself, more with the way ICANN has forced the issue through over their objections.
>> 
>> The registries, remember, are already nervous as hell about the possibility of ICANN taking unilateral action to amend their contracts in future, and bad decision-making practices now may set bad precedents.
>> 
>> But Neuman has a point about the legalistic way in which the Reconsideration Request was handled. I spotted a fair few examples in the decision of what can only be described as, frankly, lawyer bullshit.
>> 
>> For example, the NCSG used Chehade?s letter to Congress as an example of why Trademark+50 should be and was being considered ?policy?, but the BGC deliberately misses the point in its response, stating:
>> 
>> The NCSG fails to explain, however, is how ICANN policy can be created through a proclamation in a letter to Congress without following ICANN policy development procedures. To be clear, ICANN cannot create policy in this fashion.
>> 
>> Only a lawyer could come up with this kind of pedantic misinterpretation.
>> 
>> The NCSG wasn?t arguing that Chehade?s letter to Congress created a new policy, it was arguing that he was explaining an existing policy. It was attempting to say ?Hey, even Fadi thought this was policy.?
>> 
>> Strike two: the NCSG had also pointed to the aforementioned staff determination, since reversed, that Trademark+50 was a policy matter, but the BCG?s response was, again, legalistic.
>> 
>> It noted that staff only said Trademark+50 ?can? be considered a policy matter (rather than ?is?, one assumes), again ignoring the full context of the document.
>> 
>> In context, both the Chehade letter and the March staff document make specific reference to the fact that the Implementation Recommendation Team had decided back in 2009 that only strings that exactly match trademarks should be protected. But the BGC does not mention the IRT once in its decision.
>> 
>> Strike three: the BGC response discounted Chehade?s request for GNSO ?policy guidance? as an ?inartful phrase?. He wasn?t really saying it was a policy matter, apparently. No.
>> 
>> Taken as a whole, the BGC rejection of the Reconsideration Request comes across like it was written by somebody trying to justify a fait accompli, trying to make the rationale fit the decision.
>> 
>> In my view, Trademark+50 is quite a sensible compromise proposal with little serious downside.
>> 
>> I think it will help trademark owners lower their enforcement costs and the impact on registrars, registries and registrants? rights is likely to be minimal.
>> 
>> But the way it?s being levered through ICANN ? unnecessarily secretive discussions followed by badly explained U-turns ? looks dishonest.
>> 
>> It doesn?t come across like ICANN is playing fair, no matter how noble its intentions.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Jun  5 22:29:01 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:29:01 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
In-Reply-To: <51A527FF.3030105@gih.com>
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>
	<727120E4-E619-46F0-8813-EAE6623CCB68@ipjustice.org>
	<7a169f98-ceb4-4bc7-b2ef-b229af13aaf1@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<51667C66.4050003@gih.com> <51A527FF.3030105@gih.com>
Message-ID: <6B854901-FB99-424C-A606-C67FC7980081@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Olivier.  I appreciate your contacting me about this possible joint statement as we had begun to discuss in Beijing on the issue of TM+50.  I would be very happy if we could go forward with a joint statement on this issue.  

As a starting point: Is ALAC willing to consider a statement on the substance of TM+50 or is it only the process for adoption where ALAC shares NCSG's concerns?

Thanks again!  Let's see if we can agree to some general principles and then put a group of drafters together to write it up for formal adoption by our respective groups.

Best,
Robin

On May 28, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> Dear Robin,
> Dear all,
> 
> in my capacity as ALAC Chair, I am following-up on the thread re: joint Statement of the ALAC & NCSG further to an action item which was reviewed on today's ALAC monthly call.
> Have you decided whether the discussion that took place in Beijing but sadly did not give rise to a joint Statement due to lack of time, will yield a joint Statement after all?
> 
> Please be so kind to get back to me ASAP in this.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond
> ALAC Chair
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/04/2013 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Dear Robin,
>> 
>> unfortunately, we have not been able to come to an agreement on a joint statement. It was a good try, but the week's passed by so fast before we could reach consensus.
>> Our action item from our wrap-up meeting today is that we should continue to collaborate to see if, given a little more time, a written statement can come out of this collaboration.
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
>> On 11/04/2013 12:12, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130605/e63e69bd/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Jun  6 00:48:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:48:42 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] we need to challenge the daft BGC recommendation that
	ICANN staff can over-rule the community on policy decisions
In-Reply-To: <E905962A-921B-4816-A14E-9E752073376B@ella.com>
References: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>
	<DEE2D3CB-14F7-4CF7-A50B-AC06855A924F@ipjustice.org>
	<E905962A-921B-4816-A14E-9E752073376B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <8F4BB0D1-AFB7-4586-9231-D91DE1E188FA@ipjustice.org>

I post below some discussion on GNSO Council list on NCSG's request involving Jeff Neuman and Steve Crocker today:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14632.html
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    
[council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee

To: "'Steve Crocker'" <steve at xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 21:28:34 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Cyrus Namazi'" <cyrus.namazi at xxxxxxxxx>, 'Fadi Chehad?'	<fadi.chehade at xxxxxxxxx>, "'Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx)'"	<cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <F0FC343E-3BED-4BC5-BD96-99141CFB27E0 at shinkuro.com>
List-id: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4D45F5 at bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B03423208878E at stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com> <F0FC343E-3BED-4BC5-BD96-99141CFB27E0 at shinkuro.com>
Sender: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Ac5hxHgYChftmvvMQa6wfm7S8Mj95gAORnxgABJYn4AAB3O1sA==
Thread-topic: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
Steve,

Yes, thanks for the correction that it will be the new gTLD Program Committee 
that will be considering the BGC recommendation on the 11th (2 days before the 
GNSO Council Meeting).  I was planning on doing a presentation to the council 
on the 13th about the recommendation.  

In short, the BGC's recommendation basically (1) Assumes that if an issue 
involves "implementation", then there is no reason to look to the bottom-up 
process to get advice on that issue (and if they do get advice (even consensus 
advice), they can ignore it and go with whatever ICANN staff recommends; (2)  
the ICANN Staff/Board is the sole arbiter in deciding whether something is 
Policy or Implementation regardless of whether the group charged under the 
bylaws with developing policies (here, the GNSO) believe that the issue does 
involve policy; and (3) there is no meaningful review process or accountability 
if the community believes that ICANN Staff's determination on whether something 
is policy or not is plain wrong.  The fact that Reconsideration never looks at 
the substance of the issue at hand, but only looks to whether a process was 
followed is incredibly problematic.  

In this recommendation, although the GNSO strongly stated the Trademark plus 50 
decision was in fact policy (with one group issuing a minority opinion) and the 
ICANN staff initially agreed it could be considered policy, ICANN staff later 
decided on its own that it was implementation.  Because ICANN Staff is not 
bound to accept the finding of the GNSO that it was policy, and ICANN staff 
labeled it implementation, ICANN staff was free to make the changes as it saw 
fit (again with no review).    So essentially the recommendation states: (1) 
ICANN staff determined that it was implementation, (2) there is and can be no 
review of that decision through the reconsideration process, and (3) there is 
no requirement that ICANN staff get input from the community or even listen to 
the community if the ICANN staff determines that something is implementation.  

To add insult to injury, the outside law firm that wrote the recommendation 
wrote it in the style of a litigation brief making such ludicrous arguments 
(which cannot be reviewed), like [and I am paraphrasing]:  "Yes, the ICANN CEO 
said previously that this issue CAN be considered policy."  It goes on to state 
that the CEO  carefully chose this word because in saying that it "CAN" be 
policy, that also equally means that it might not be policy and therefore the 
written statement by the CEO was not an admission that it was in fact policy. I 
find this argument insulting. Is this really what we expect of ICANN as an 
multi-stakeholder organization?  Namely, to consistently use weasel words 
(reviewed by legal counsel) so that one day if ever questioned on a statement 
he or she made, the legal team can find a loophole and get out of a commitment 
that ICANN makes.  Shouldn't we expect more from an organization that is 
supposed to look out for the public interest?

Steve - In the end I could care less about the substantive decision to allow 
the Trademark plus 50 (although a number of people do care about this).  The 
decision was made and my registry will implement that decision because we have 
to.  However, there were probably 50 other ways that ICANN's BGC could have 
justified the decision it made.  I would rather have ICANN apologize for the 
way it handled the situation, promise that it won't happen again that way, and 
then move on to the real work of implementing the new gTLDs.  Instead, we got 
an overly legalistic brief which is an after-the-fact justification for what 
they did using a rationale that destroys the multi-stakeholder model.

I intend to provide more information during the Council meeting and would 
encourage attendance from the BGC.  However, I would ask that the New gTLD 
Program Committee not proceed on making a decision on this recommendation until 
it could be adequately discussed by the community.  

Sorry for the long note and I would be happy to give more concrete examples 
from the recommendation.  I just ask for more time.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve at xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:47 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Steve Crocker; Bruce Tonkin; council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cyrus Namazi; Fadi 
Chehad?; Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee

Jeff,

I think you're asking the New gTLD Program Committee to defer voting on the 
BGC's recommendation.  This matter is not in front of the full Board, and the 
full Board isn't meeting until June 27.

That said, I'm curious as to the substance of your objection.  Have you written 
anything about it?

Thanks,

Steve

On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's 
> recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request?
> 
> As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next Council 
> call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board meeting).  A number 
> of us on the GNSO completely disagree with the rationale that was used to 
> justify the outcome (even if we do not dispute the outcome).  We believe that 
> the BGC's rationale will undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder 
> model (as in my previous e-mail to the council which I have attached).  
> 
> We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision on this 
> reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the GNSO Council 
> and its members on our thoughts about this decision.  I personally believe if 
> the Board adopts this recommendation (more particularly the rationale for the 
> recommendation), the Board will have not officially put the nail in the 
> coffin for the Reconsideration process as an accountability measure, but will 
> have also the multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it.
> 
> I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done before) on 
> this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea for the Board to 
> forgo any definitive action on this request until such time that we can be 
> heard.  We also ask whether anyone from the BGC could be available to discuss 
> this issue with us on the GNSO Council call. 
> 
> P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to whether the 
> Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place as an RPM.  Rather, 
> we strongly disagree with the assumptions and fundamentally-flawed rationale 
> in the BGC's recommendation.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 




On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> good idea.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 5 Jun 2013, at 13:30, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> ..... I should add that we need to make that request to BGC for a discussion very soon.  The recommendation is on the board's agenda to be rubber stamped on 11 June:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14630.html
>> 
>> (not sure why it is on the agenda of the new gtld program cmte and not the entire board though)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> NCSG-PC Members:
>>> 
>>> I'd like to propose that we request a meeting with the Board Governance Committee to discuss its recommendation on our request for consideration and its underlying rationale which has major implications for the bottom-up policy development model.  The recommendation was obviously drafted by legal counsel (probably the same legal counsel who drafted the policy we are challenging).   And if it stands it does mean there is no bottom-up policy development at ICANN - it is a huge power grab by ICANN staff to take policy development entirely away from the community and put it in their unaccountable hands.  Even folks like Jeff Neuman who do not have an opinion on the underlying TM+50 issue are terribly concerned for what the recommendation means for the entire bottom-up policy model ICANN claims to champion.
>>> 
>>> I also think we should file for an Independent Review of the decision - since its daft logic will not be so easily swallowed by an independent arbiter.  So we need to develop a plan for challenging this BGC recommendation and put it into action quickly.  I know Ed has done some initial research on this for us.
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments on this?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://domainincite.com/13136-the-true-historie-of-trademark50-and-the-deathe-of-the-gnso-parte-the-thirde
>>> 
>>> The True Historie of Trademark+50 and the Deathe of the GNSO (Parte the Thirde)
>>> 
>>> Kevin Murphy, May 28, 2013, 13:44:03 (UTC), Domain Policy
>>> ICANN?s decision to press ahead with the ?Trademark+50? trademark protection mechanism over the objections of much of the community may not be the end of the controversy.
>>> 
>>> Some in the Generic Names Supporting Organization are even complaining that ICANN?s rejection of a recent challenge to the proposal may ?fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model?.
>>> 
>>> Trademark+50 is the recently devised adjunct to the suite of rights protection mechanisms created specially for the new gTLD program.
>>> 
>>> It will enable trademark owners to add up to 50 strings to each record they have in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where those strings have been previously ruled abusive under UDRP.
>>> 
>>> Once in the TMCH, they will generate Trademark Claims notices for both the trademark owner and the would-be registrant of the matching domain name during the first 60 days of general availability in each new gTLD.
>>> 
>>> Guinness, for example, will be able to add ?guinness-sucks? to its TMCH record for ?Guinness? because it has previously won guinness-sucks.com in a UDRP decision.
>>> 
>>> If somebody then tries to register guinness-sucks.beer, they?ll get a warning that they may be about to infringe Guinness? trademark rights. If they go ahead and register anyway, Guinness will also get an alert.
>>> 
>>> Trademark+50 was created jointly by ICANN?s Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency late last year as one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen rights protection in new gTLDs.
>>> 
>>> They then managed to persuade CEO Fadi Chehade, who was at the time still pretty new and didn?t fully appreciate the history of conflict over these issues, to convene a series of invitation-only meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles to try to get other community members to agree to the proposals.
>>> 
>>> These meetings came up with the ?strawman solution?, a list of proposed changes to the program?s rights protection mechanisms.
>>> 
>>> Until two weeks ago, when DI managed to get ICANN to publish a transcript and audio recording of the LA meetings, what was said during these meetings was shrouded in a certain degree of secrecy.
>>> 
>>> I don?t know why. Having listened to the 20-hour recording, I can tell you there was very little said that you wouldn?t hear during a regular on-the-record public ICANN meeting.
>>> 
>>> Everyone appeared to act in good faith, bringing new ideas and suggestions to the table in an attempt to find a solution that was acceptable to all.
>>> 
>>> The strongest resistance to the strawman came, in my view, from the very small number (only one remained by the end) of non-commercial interests who had been invited, and from the registrars.
>>> 
>>> The non-coms were worried about the ?chilling effect? of expanding trademark rights, while registrars were worried that they would end up carrying the cost of supporting confused or frightened registrants.
>>> 
>>> What did emerge during the LA meeting was quite a heated discussion about whether the IPC/BC proposals should be considered merely ?implementation? details or the creation of new ?policy?.
>>> 
>>> That debate spilled over into 2013.
>>> 
>>> Under the very strictest definition of ?policy?, it could be argued that pretty much every aspect of every new rights protection mechanism in the Applicant Guidebook is ?implementation?.
>>> 
>>> The only hard policy the GNSO came up with on trademarks in new gTLDs was back in 2008. It reads:
>>> 
>>> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
>>> 
>>> Pretty much everything that has come since has been cobbled together from community discussions, ad hoc working groups, ICANN staff ?synthesis? of public comments, and board action.
>>> 
>>> But many in the ICANN community ? mainly registries, registrars and non-commercial interests ? say that anything that appears to create new rights and/or imposes significant new burdens on the industry should be considered ?policy?.
>>> 
>>> During the LA meetings, there was broad agreement that stuff like extending Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days and instituting a mandatory 30-day notice period before each Sunrise period was ?implementation?.
>>> 
>>> Those changes won?t really incur any major new costs for the industry; they merely tweak systems that already have broad, if sometimes grudging, community support.
>>> 
>>> But the attendees were split (IPC/BC on the one side, most everyone else on the other) about whether Trademark+50, among other items, was new policy or just an implementation detail.
>>> 
>>> If something is ?policy? there are community processes to deal with it. If it?s implementation it can be turned over to ICANN staff and forgotten.
>>> 
>>> Because the registries and registrars have an effective veto on GNSO policy-making and tend to vote as a bloc, many others view a ?policy? label as a death sentence for something they want done.
>>> 
>>> A month after the strawman meetings, in early December, ICANN staff produced a briefing paper on the strawman solution (pdf) for public comment. Describing what we?re now calling Trademark+50, the paper stated quite unambiguously (it seemed at the time):
>>> 
>>> The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.
>>> 
>>> Chehade had previously ? before the strawman meetings ? strongly suggested in a letter to members of the US Congress that Trademark+50 was not doable:
>>> 
>>> It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I doubt then-new Chehade wrote the letter (at least, not without help). It mirrors Beckstrom-era arguments and language and contrasts with a lot of what he?s said since.
>>> 
>>> But it?s a pretty clear statement from ICANN?s CEO that the expansion of Trademark Claims to Trademark+50 night expand trademark rights and, implicitly, is not some throwaway implementation detail.
>>> 
>>> Nevertheless, a day after the staff briefing paper Chehade wrote to GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson in early December to ask for ?policy guidance? on the proposal.
>>> 
>>> Again, there was a strong suggestion that ICANN was viewing Trademark+50 as a policy issue that would probably require GNSO input.
>>> 
>>> Robinson replied at the end of February, after some very difficult GNSO Council discussions, saying ?the majority of the council feels that is proposal is best addressed as a policy concern?.
>>> 
>>> The IPC disagreed with this majority view, no doubt afraid that a ?policy? tag would lead to Trademark+50 being gutted by the other GNSO constituencies over the space of months or years.
>>> 
>>> But despite ICANN staff, most of the GNSO Council and apparently Chehade himself concluding that Trademark+50 was policy, staff did a U-turn in March and decided to go ahead with Trademark+50 after all.
>>> 
>>> An unsigned March 20 staff report states:
>>> 
>>> Having reviewed and balanced all feedback, this proposal appears to be a reasonable add-on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service.
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> It is difficult to justify omission of a readily available mechanism which would strengthen the trademark protection available through the Clearinghouse. Given that the proposal relies on determinations that have already been made independently through established processes, and that the scope of protection is bounded by this, concerns about undue expansion of rights do not seem necessary.
>>> 
>>> This caught the GNSO off-guard; Trademark+50 had looked like it was going down the policy track and all of a sudden it was a pressing reality of implementation.
>>> 
>>> Outraged, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which had been the strongest (if smallest through no fault of their own) voice against the proposal during the strawman meetings filed a formal Reconsideration Request (pdf) with ICANN.
>>> 
>>> Reconsideration Requests are one of the oversight mechanisms built into ICANN?s bylaws. They?re adjudicated by ICANN?s own Board Governance Committee and never succeed.
>>> 
>>> In its request, the NCSG told a pretty similar history to the one I?ve just finished relating and asked the BGC to overturn the staff decision to treat Trademark+50 as implementation.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG notes, rightly, that just because a domain has been lost at UDRP the string itself is not necessarily inherently abusive. To win a UDRP a complainant must also demonstrate the registrant?s bad faith and lack of rights to the string at issue.
>>> 
>>> To return to the earlier example, when notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini ? an unambiguously bad guy ? registered guinness-sucks.com back in 2000 he told Guinness he?d done it just to piss them off.
>>> 
>>> That doesn?t mean guinness-sucks.beer is inherently bad, however. In many jurisdictions I would be well within my rights to register the domain to host a site criticizing the filthy brown muck.
>>> 
>>> But if I try to register the name, I?m going to get a Trademark Claims notice asking me to verify that I?m not going to infringe Guinness? legal rights and advising me to consult a lawyer.
>>> 
>>> Chilling effect? Maybe. My own view is that many people will just click through the notice as easily as they click through the Ts&Cs on any other web site or piece of software.
>>> 
>>> Either way, I won?t be able to claim in court that I?d never heard of GuinnessTM, should the company ever decide to sue me.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the NCSG?s Reconsideration Request failed. On May 16 the BGC issued a 15-page determination (pdf) denying it.
>>> 
>>> It?s this document that?s causing consternation and death-of-the-GNSO mutterings right now.
>>> 
>>> Last week, Neustar?s lead ICANN wonk Jeff Neuman asked for the Reconsideration Request to be put on the agenda of the GNSO Council?s June 13 meeting. He wants BGC representatives to join the call too. He wrote:
>>> 
>>> This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
>>> 
>>> He has support from other councilors.
>>> 
>>> I suspect the registries that Neuman represents on the Council are not so much concerned with Trademark+50 itself, more with the way ICANN has forced the issue through over their objections.
>>> 
>>> The registries, remember, are already nervous as hell about the possibility of ICANN taking unilateral action to amend their contracts in future, and bad decision-making practices now may set bad precedents.
>>> 
>>> But Neuman has a point about the legalistic way in which the Reconsideration Request was handled. I spotted a fair few examples in the decision of what can only be described as, frankly, lawyer bullshit.
>>> 
>>> For example, the NCSG used Chehade?s letter to Congress as an example of why Trademark+50 should be and was being considered ?policy?, but the BGC deliberately misses the point in its response, stating:
>>> 
>>> The NCSG fails to explain, however, is how ICANN policy can be created through a proclamation in a letter to Congress without following ICANN policy development procedures. To be clear, ICANN cannot create policy in this fashion.
>>> 
>>> Only a lawyer could come up with this kind of pedantic misinterpretation.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG wasn?t arguing that Chehade?s letter to Congress created a new policy, it was arguing that he was explaining an existing policy. It was attempting to say ?Hey, even Fadi thought this was policy.?
>>> 
>>> Strike two: the NCSG had also pointed to the aforementioned staff determination, since reversed, that Trademark+50 was a policy matter, but the BCG?s response was, again, legalistic.
>>> 
>>> It noted that staff only said Trademark+50 ?can? be considered a policy matter (rather than ?is?, one assumes), again ignoring the full context of the document.
>>> 
>>> In context, both the Chehade letter and the March staff document make specific reference to the fact that the Implementation Recommendation Team had decided back in 2009 that only strings that exactly match trademarks should be protected. But the BGC does not mention the IRT once in its decision.
>>> 
>>> Strike three: the BGC response discounted Chehade?s request for GNSO ?policy guidance? as an ?inartful phrase?. He wasn?t really saying it was a policy matter, apparently. No.
>>> 
>>> Taken as a whole, the BGC rejection of the Reconsideration Request comes across like it was written by somebody trying to justify a fait accompli, trying to make the rationale fit the decision.
>>> 
>>> In my view, Trademark+50 is quite a sensible compromise proposal with little serious downside.
>>> 
>>> I think it will help trademark owners lower their enforcement costs and the impact on registrars, registries and registrants? rights is likely to be minimal.
>>> 
>>> But the way it?s being levered through ICANN ? unnecessarily secretive discussions followed by badly explained U-turns ? looks dishonest.
>>> 
>>> It doesn?t come across like ICANN is playing fair, no matter how noble its intentions.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130605/3931cc6f/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Jun  7 19:32:37 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:32:37 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] we need to challenge the daft BGC recommendation that
	ICANN staff can over-rule the community on policy decisions
In-Reply-To: <8F4BB0D1-AFB7-4586-9231-D91DE1E188FA@ipjustice.org>
References: <0F7193A8-0A79-44F6-B32F-BF2292ED1220@ipjustice.org>
	<DEE2D3CB-14F7-4CF7-A50B-AC06855A924F@ipjustice.org>
	<E905962A-921B-4816-A14E-9E752073376B@ella.com>
	<8F4BB0D1-AFB7-4586-9231-D91DE1E188FA@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <FF01E267-00CF-412E-8C15-7304B9170707@ipjustice.org>

It would be great if we could get some feedback from our GNSO Councilors on the suggestion to challenge this BGC recommendation and request a discussion with BGC.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> I post below some discussion on GNSO Council list on NCSG's request involving Jeff Neuman and Steve Crocker today:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14632.html
> <<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    
> [council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
> 
> To: "'Steve Crocker'" <steve at xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 21:28:34 +0000
> Accept-language: en-US
> Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Cyrus Namazi'" <cyrus.namazi at xxxxxxxxx>, 'Fadi Chehad?'	<fadi.chehade at xxxxxxxxx>, "'Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx)'"	<cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx>
> In-reply-to: <F0FC343E-3BED-4BC5-BD96-99141CFB27E0 at shinkuro.com>
> List-id: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4D45F5 at bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B03423208878E at stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com> <F0FC343E-3BED-4BC5-BD96-99141CFB27E0 at shinkuro.com>
> Sender: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thread-index: Ac5hxHgYChftmvvMQa6wfm7S8Mj95gAORnxgABJYn4AAB3O1sA==
> Thread-topic: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
> Steve,
> 
> Yes, thanks for the correction that it will be the new gTLD Program Committee 
> that will be considering the BGC recommendation on the 11th (2 days before the 
> GNSO Council Meeting).  I was planning on doing a presentation to the council 
> on the 13th about the recommendation.  
> 
> In short, the BGC's recommendation basically (1) Assumes that if an issue 
> involves "implementation", then there is no reason to look to the bottom-up 
> process to get advice on that issue (and if they do get advice (even consensus 
> advice), they can ignore it and go with whatever ICANN staff recommends; (2)  
> the ICANN Staff/Board is the sole arbiter in deciding whether something is 
> Policy or Implementation regardless of whether the group charged under the 
> bylaws with developing policies (here, the GNSO) believe that the issue does 
> involve policy; and (3) there is no meaningful review process or accountability 
> if the community believes that ICANN Staff's determination on whether something 
> is policy or not is plain wrong.  The fact that Reconsideration never looks at 
> the substance of the issue at hand, but only looks to whether a process was 
> followed is incredibly problematic.  
> 
> In this recommendation, although the GNSO strongly stated the Trademark plus 50 
> decision was in fact policy (with one group issuing a minority opinion) and the 
> ICANN staff initially agreed it could be considered policy, ICANN staff later 
> decided on its own that it was implementation.  Because ICANN Staff is not 
> bound to accept the finding of the GNSO that it was policy, and ICANN staff 
> labeled it implementation, ICANN staff was free to make the changes as it saw 
> fit (again with no review).    So essentially the recommendation states: (1) 
> ICANN staff determined that it was implementation, (2) there is and can be no 
> review of that decision through the reconsideration process, and (3) there is 
> no requirement that ICANN staff get input from the community or even listen to 
> the community if the ICANN staff determines that something is implementation.  
> 
> To add insult to injury, the outside law firm that wrote the recommendation 
> wrote it in the style of a litigation brief making such ludicrous arguments 
> (which cannot be reviewed), like [and I am paraphrasing]:  "Yes, the ICANN CEO 
> said previously that this issue CAN be considered policy."  It goes on to state 
> that the CEO  carefully chose this word because in saying that it "CAN" be 
> policy, that also equally means that it might not be policy and therefore the 
> written statement by the CEO was not an admission that it was in fact policy. I 
> find this argument insulting. Is this really what we expect of ICANN as an 
> multi-stakeholder organization?  Namely, to consistently use weasel words 
> (reviewed by legal counsel) so that one day if ever questioned on a statement 
> he or she made, the legal team can find a loophole and get out of a commitment 
> that ICANN makes.  Shouldn't we expect more from an organization that is 
> supposed to look out for the public interest?
> 
> Steve - In the end I could care less about the substantive decision to allow 
> the Trademark plus 50 (although a number of people do care about this).  The 
> decision was made and my registry will implement that decision because we have 
> to.  However, there were probably 50 other ways that ICANN's BGC could have 
> justified the decision it made.  I would rather have ICANN apologize for the 
> way it handled the situation, promise that it won't happen again that way, and 
> then move on to the real work of implementing the new gTLDs.  Instead, we got 
> an overly legalistic brief which is an after-the-fact justification for what 
> they did using a rationale that destroys the multi-stakeholder model.
> 
> I intend to provide more information during the Council meeting and would 
> encourage attendance from the BGC.  However, I would ask that the New gTLD 
> Program Committee not proceed on making a decision on this recommendation until 
> it could be adequately discussed by the community.  
> 
> Sorry for the long note and I would be happy to give more concrete examples 
> from the recommendation.  I just ask for more time.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve at xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:47 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Steve Crocker; Bruce Tonkin; council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cyrus Namazi; Fadi 
> Chehad?; Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby at xxxxxxxxx)
> Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I think you're asking the New gTLD Program Committee to defer voting on the 
> BGC's recommendation.  This matter is not in front of the full Board, and the 
> full Board isn't meeting until June 27.
> 
> That said, I'm curious as to the substance of your objection.  Have you written 
> anything about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Bruce,
> > 
> > Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's 
> > recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request?
> > 
> > As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next Council 
> > call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board meeting).  A number 
> > of us on the GNSO completely disagree with the rationale that was used to 
> > justify the outcome (even if we do not dispute the outcome).  We believe that 
> > the BGC's rationale will undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder 
> > model (as in my previous e-mail to the council which I have attached).  
> > 
> > We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision on this 
> > reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the GNSO Council 
> > and its members on our thoughts about this decision.  I personally believe if 
> > the Board adopts this recommendation (more particularly the rationale for the 
> > recommendation), the Board will have not officially put the nail in the 
> > coffin for the Reconsideration process as an accountability measure, but will 
> > have also the multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it.
> > 
> > I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done before) on 
> > this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea for the Board to 
> > forgo any definitive action on this request until such time that we can be 
> > heard.  We also ask whether anyone from the BGC could be available to discuss 
> > this issue with us on the GNSO Council call. 
> > 
> > P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to whether the 
> > Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place as an RPM.  Rather, 
> > we strongly disagree with the assumptions and fundamentally-flawed rationale 
> > in the BGC's recommendation.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> good idea.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 5 Jun 2013, at 13:30, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> ..... I should add that we need to make that request to BGC for a discussion very soon.  The recommendation is on the board's agenda to be rubber stamped on 11 June:
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14630.html
>>> 
>>> (not sure why it is on the agenda of the new gtld program cmte and not the entire board though)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> NCSG-PC Members:
>>>> 
>>>> I'd like to propose that we request a meeting with the Board Governance Committee to discuss its recommendation on our request for consideration and its underlying rationale which has major implications for the bottom-up policy development model.  The recommendation was obviously drafted by legal counsel (probably the same legal counsel who drafted the policy we are challenging).   And if it stands it does mean there is no bottom-up policy development at ICANN - it is a huge power grab by ICANN staff to take policy development entirely away from the community and put it in their unaccountable hands.  Even folks like Jeff Neuman who do not have an opinion on the underlying TM+50 issue are terribly concerned for what the recommendation means for the entire bottom-up policy model ICANN claims to champion.
>>>> 
>>>> I also think we should file for an Independent Review of the decision - since its daft logic will not be so easily swallowed by an independent arbiter.  So we need to develop a plan for challenging this BGC recommendation and put it into action quickly.  I know Ed has done some initial research on this for us.
>>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments on this?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://domainincite.com/13136-the-true-historie-of-trademark50-and-the-deathe-of-the-gnso-parte-the-thirde
>>>> 
>>>> The True Historie of Trademark+50 and the Deathe of the GNSO (Parte the Thirde)
>>>> 
>>>> Kevin Murphy, May 28, 2013, 13:44:03 (UTC), Domain Policy
>>>> ICANN?s decision to press ahead with the ?Trademark+50? trademark protection mechanism over the objections of much of the community may not be the end of the controversy.
>>>> 
>>>> Some in the Generic Names Supporting Organization are even complaining that ICANN?s rejection of a recent challenge to the proposal may ?fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model?.
>>>> 
>>>> Trademark+50 is the recently devised adjunct to the suite of rights protection mechanisms created specially for the new gTLD program.
>>>> 
>>>> It will enable trademark owners to add up to 50 strings to each record they have in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where those strings have been previously ruled abusive under UDRP.
>>>> 
>>>> Once in the TMCH, they will generate Trademark Claims notices for both the trademark owner and the would-be registrant of the matching domain name during the first 60 days of general availability in each new gTLD.
>>>> 
>>>> Guinness, for example, will be able to add ?guinness-sucks? to its TMCH record for ?Guinness? because it has previously won guinness-sucks.com in a UDRP decision.
>>>> 
>>>> If somebody then tries to register guinness-sucks.beer, they?ll get a warning that they may be about to infringe Guinness? trademark rights. If they go ahead and register anyway, Guinness will also get an alert.
>>>> 
>>>> Trademark+50 was created jointly by ICANN?s Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency late last year as one of a raft of measures designed to strengthen rights protection in new gTLDs.
>>>> 
>>>> They then managed to persuade CEO Fadi Chehade, who was at the time still pretty new and didn?t fully appreciate the history of conflict over these issues, to convene a series of invitation-only meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles to try to get other community members to agree to the proposals.
>>>> 
>>>> These meetings came up with the ?strawman solution?, a list of proposed changes to the program?s rights protection mechanisms.
>>>> 
>>>> Until two weeks ago, when DI managed to get ICANN to publish a transcript and audio recording of the LA meetings, what was said during these meetings was shrouded in a certain degree of secrecy.
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t know why. Having listened to the 20-hour recording, I can tell you there was very little said that you wouldn?t hear during a regular on-the-record public ICANN meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Everyone appeared to act in good faith, bringing new ideas and suggestions to the table in an attempt to find a solution that was acceptable to all.
>>>> 
>>>> The strongest resistance to the strawman came, in my view, from the very small number (only one remained by the end) of non-commercial interests who had been invited, and from the registrars.
>>>> 
>>>> The non-coms were worried about the ?chilling effect? of expanding trademark rights, while registrars were worried that they would end up carrying the cost of supporting confused or frightened registrants.
>>>> 
>>>> What did emerge during the LA meeting was quite a heated discussion about whether the IPC/BC proposals should be considered merely ?implementation? details or the creation of new ?policy?.
>>>> 
>>>> That debate spilled over into 2013.
>>>> 
>>>> Under the very strictest definition of ?policy?, it could be argued that pretty much every aspect of every new rights protection mechanism in the Applicant Guidebook is ?implementation?.
>>>> 
>>>> The only hard policy the GNSO came up with on trademarks in new gTLDs was back in 2008. It reads:
>>>> 
>>>> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
>>>> 
>>>> Pretty much everything that has come since has been cobbled together from community discussions, ad hoc working groups, ICANN staff ?synthesis? of public comments, and board action.
>>>> 
>>>> But many in the ICANN community ? mainly registries, registrars and non-commercial interests ? say that anything that appears to create new rights and/or imposes significant new burdens on the industry should be considered ?policy?.
>>>> 
>>>> During the LA meetings, there was broad agreement that stuff like extending Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days and instituting a mandatory 30-day notice period before each Sunrise period was ?implementation?.
>>>> 
>>>> Those changes won?t really incur any major new costs for the industry; they merely tweak systems that already have broad, if sometimes grudging, community support.
>>>> 
>>>> But the attendees were split (IPC/BC on the one side, most everyone else on the other) about whether Trademark+50, among other items, was new policy or just an implementation detail.
>>>> 
>>>> If something is ?policy? there are community processes to deal with it. If it?s implementation it can be turned over to ICANN staff and forgotten.
>>>> 
>>>> Because the registries and registrars have an effective veto on GNSO policy-making and tend to vote as a bloc, many others view a ?policy? label as a death sentence for something they want done.
>>>> 
>>>> A month after the strawman meetings, in early December, ICANN staff produced a briefing paper on the strawman solution (pdf) for public comment. Describing what we?re now calling Trademark+50, the paper stated quite unambiguously (it seemed at the time):
>>>> 
>>>> The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter.
>>>> 
>>>> Chehade had previously ? before the strawman meetings ? strongly suggested in a letter to members of the US Congress that Trademark+50 was not doable:
>>>> 
>>>> It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally, I doubt then-new Chehade wrote the letter (at least, not without help). It mirrors Beckstrom-era arguments and language and contrasts with a lot of what he?s said since.
>>>> 
>>>> But it?s a pretty clear statement from ICANN?s CEO that the expansion of Trademark Claims to Trademark+50 night expand trademark rights and, implicitly, is not some throwaway implementation detail.
>>>> 
>>>> Nevertheless, a day after the staff briefing paper Chehade wrote to GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson in early December to ask for ?policy guidance? on the proposal.
>>>> 
>>>> Again, there was a strong suggestion that ICANN was viewing Trademark+50 as a policy issue that would probably require GNSO input.
>>>> 
>>>> Robinson replied at the end of February, after some very difficult GNSO Council discussions, saying ?the majority of the council feels that is proposal is best addressed as a policy concern?.
>>>> 
>>>> The IPC disagreed with this majority view, no doubt afraid that a ?policy? tag would lead to Trademark+50 being gutted by the other GNSO constituencies over the space of months or years.
>>>> 
>>>> But despite ICANN staff, most of the GNSO Council and apparently Chehade himself concluding that Trademark+50 was policy, staff did a U-turn in March and decided to go ahead with Trademark+50 after all.
>>>> 
>>>> An unsigned March 20 staff report states:
>>>> 
>>>> Having reviewed and balanced all feedback, this proposal appears to be a reasonable add-on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service.
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>>> 
>>>> It is difficult to justify omission of a readily available mechanism which would strengthen the trademark protection available through the Clearinghouse. Given that the proposal relies on determinations that have already been made independently through established processes, and that the scope of protection is bounded by this, concerns about undue expansion of rights do not seem necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> This caught the GNSO off-guard; Trademark+50 had looked like it was going down the policy track and all of a sudden it was a pressing reality of implementation.
>>>> 
>>>> Outraged, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which had been the strongest (if smallest through no fault of their own) voice against the proposal during the strawman meetings filed a formal Reconsideration Request (pdf) with ICANN.
>>>> 
>>>> Reconsideration Requests are one of the oversight mechanisms built into ICANN?s bylaws. They?re adjudicated by ICANN?s own Board Governance Committee and never succeed.
>>>> 
>>>> In its request, the NCSG told a pretty similar history to the one I?ve just finished relating and asked the BGC to overturn the staff decision to treat Trademark+50 as implementation.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG notes, rightly, that just because a domain has been lost at UDRP the string itself is not necessarily inherently abusive. To win a UDRP a complainant must also demonstrate the registrant?s bad faith and lack of rights to the string at issue.
>>>> 
>>>> To return to the earlier example, when notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini ? an unambiguously bad guy ? registered guinness-sucks.com back in 2000 he told Guinness he?d done it just to piss them off.
>>>> 
>>>> That doesn?t mean guinness-sucks.beer is inherently bad, however. In many jurisdictions I would be well within my rights to register the domain to host a site criticizing the filthy brown muck.
>>>> 
>>>> But if I try to register the name, I?m going to get a Trademark Claims notice asking me to verify that I?m not going to infringe Guinness? legal rights and advising me to consult a lawyer.
>>>> 
>>>> Chilling effect? Maybe. My own view is that many people will just click through the notice as easily as they click through the Ts&Cs on any other web site or piece of software.
>>>> 
>>>> Either way, I won?t be able to claim in court that I?d never heard of GuinnessTM, should the company ever decide to sue me.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, the NCSG?s Reconsideration Request failed. On May 16 the BGC issued a 15-page determination (pdf) denying it.
>>>> 
>>>> It?s this document that?s causing consternation and death-of-the-GNSO mutterings right now.
>>>> 
>>>> Last week, Neustar?s lead ICANN wonk Jeff Neuman asked for the Reconsideration Request to be put on the agenda of the GNSO Council?s June 13 meeting. He wants BGC representatives to join the call too. He wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if we do not step in.
>>>> 
>>>> He has support from other councilors.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect the registries that Neuman represents on the Council are not so much concerned with Trademark+50 itself, more with the way ICANN has forced the issue through over their objections.
>>>> 
>>>> The registries, remember, are already nervous as hell about the possibility of ICANN taking unilateral action to amend their contracts in future, and bad decision-making practices now may set bad precedents.
>>>> 
>>>> But Neuman has a point about the legalistic way in which the Reconsideration Request was handled. I spotted a fair few examples in the decision of what can only be described as, frankly, lawyer bullshit.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, the NCSG used Chehade?s letter to Congress as an example of why Trademark+50 should be and was being considered ?policy?, but the BGC deliberately misses the point in its response, stating:
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG fails to explain, however, is how ICANN policy can be created through a proclamation in a letter to Congress without following ICANN policy development procedures. To be clear, ICANN cannot create policy in this fashion.
>>>> 
>>>> Only a lawyer could come up with this kind of pedantic misinterpretation.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG wasn?t arguing that Chehade?s letter to Congress created a new policy, it was arguing that he was explaining an existing policy. It was attempting to say ?Hey, even Fadi thought this was policy.?
>>>> 
>>>> Strike two: the NCSG had also pointed to the aforementioned staff determination, since reversed, that Trademark+50 was a policy matter, but the BCG?s response was, again, legalistic.
>>>> 
>>>> It noted that staff only said Trademark+50 ?can? be considered a policy matter (rather than ?is?, one assumes), again ignoring the full context of the document.
>>>> 
>>>> In context, both the Chehade letter and the March staff document make specific reference to the fact that the Implementation Recommendation Team had decided back in 2009 that only strings that exactly match trademarks should be protected. But the BGC does not mention the IRT once in its decision.
>>>> 
>>>> Strike three: the BGC response discounted Chehade?s request for GNSO ?policy guidance? as an ?inartful phrase?. He wasn?t really saying it was a policy matter, apparently. No.
>>>> 
>>>> Taken as a whole, the BGC rejection of the Reconsideration Request comes across like it was written by somebody trying to justify a fait accompli, trying to make the rationale fit the decision.
>>>> 
>>>> In my view, Trademark+50 is quite a sensible compromise proposal with little serious downside.
>>>> 
>>>> I think it will help trademark owners lower their enforcement costs and the impact on registrars, registries and registrants? rights is likely to be minimal.
>>>> 
>>>> But the way it?s being levered through ICANN ? unnecessarily secretive discussions followed by badly explained U-turns ? looks dishonest.
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn?t come across like ICANN is playing fair, no matter how noble its intentions.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20130607/ad7d042e/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jun 11 07:11:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:11:28 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reminder: Tuesday 11 June (13:00 UTC) NCSG Policy Call -
	Dial-in Details & Discussion Agenda
In-Reply-To: <57781393-4B60-4269-A409-4F80B3AE2881@ipjustice.org>
References: <57781393-4B60-4269-A409-4F80B3AE2881@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <700C5DE0-F8AE-4C44-B96B-8CE11D019D80@ipjustice.org>

On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Reminder: Please join in Tuesday's monthly open membership meeting.  This meeting is typically held 2 days before the next GNSO Council Meeting and is an effort to prepare noncommercial participation for the GNSO Council meeting by encouraging input from the membership and engagement from the NCSG GNSO Councilors with the members on the pending policy issues.  Also, we should discuss NCSG's response to the BGC recommendation on our reconsideration request, which essentially replaces bottom-up community-developed policy with top-down staff-driven policy decisions.  The board is expected to adopt the BGC recommendation on 25 June unless the community can persuade it to do otherwise.
> 
> I hope you all will join in this Tuesday's call.  Thanks!
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> NCSG Open Policy Meeting
> Tuesday 11 June 2013
> 13:00 UTC (2hrs)
> 
> NCSG Teleconference Bridge Dial-In Details & Passcode "NCSG":
>   http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm           
> 
> NCSG Remote Participation via Adobe Connect online meeting software:
>   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
> 
> Attendance Record of NCSG Policy & Executive Committee Members at NCSG Policy Meetings (ICANN #45 -->)
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE
> 
> 
> DRAFT DISCUSSION AGENDA:
> 
> I.  NCSG Reconsideration Request & Response to BGC
> A.  NCSG Request meeting with BGC on rationale of decision
> B.  File Independent Review of Decision - challenge it
> C.  Community Concern - other options?
> 
> II.  GAC Communique on New GTLD's
> A. Proposed Mtg between NCSG & EC
> 
> III. ATRT Update
> NCSG Contributions encouraged
> 
> IV.  Preparation for 13 June GNSO Council Meeting**
> A.  Motions for Vote
> B.  Discussion Items on Council Agenda
> C.  All NCSG GNSO Reps are committed to participate or have found a proxy?
> 
> V.  Open Comment Periods & Other Statements
> 
> VI. Open Working Groups
> 
> VII.  ICANN #47 in Durban Preview
> 
> 
> 13 June GNSO Council Agenda:
>   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013
> Meeting Times 11:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 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.
> 
> 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:
> 
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May 2013
> 
> Item 2: Opening remarks from the 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 - To Adopt Revised GNSO Council Operating Procedures (10 minutes)
> 
> The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity.  The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.
> 
> Link to motion
> Motions 13 June 2013
> 
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion of motion.
> 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH).
> 
> Item 5: MOTION ? TBC (10 minutes)
> 
> Motion
> 
> Link to motion
> Motions 13 June 2013
> 
> 5.1 Reading of the motion
> 5.2 Discussion of motion.
> 5.3 Vote
> 
> 
> Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
> 
> A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> 
> After consulting with the Expert Working Group (EWG), staff recommends that a PDP be initiated because the work of the PDP Team will help inform the work of the EWG.
> 
> Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report 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.
> 
> An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP. 
> 
> 6.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
> Motions 13 June 2013
> 6.2 Discussion
> 6.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)
> 
> Item 7: DISCUSSION ? Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15 mins)
> 
> On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published.  Concerns have been raised within the Council about:
> 
> The nature of the response to this particular request.  Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model.
> More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.
> The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model.
> 
> Item 8: DISCUSSION ? Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15 mins)
> 
> As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review.  In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps.  One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review.
> 
> Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG.
> 
> Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins)
> 
> During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 
> 
> Ideally, input is requested on:
> 
> a)    Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
> 
> b)    Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
> 
> c)     c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
> 
> Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).
> 
> At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may13-en.pdf
> 
> 9.1 Discussion
> 
> 9.2 Next steps ? Any additional action to be taken?
> 
> 9.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)
> 
> Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Durban (20 minutes)
> 
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning.  GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort.
> 
> The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council?s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 
> 10.1 ? Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 10.2 ? Discussion
> 10.3 ? Next steps
> 
> Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130610/94ed1895/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jun 12 00:06:11 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:06:11 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
Message-ID: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>

Hi

At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.

Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.

This is what I have.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing

avri


From avri  Wed Jun 12 00:48:28 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:48:28 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>

hi,

oh, and the deadline is today.

sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.

submit or no?

thanks

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi
> 
> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
> 
> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
> 
> This is what I have.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> avri




From robin  Wed Jun 12 01:24:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:24:28 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council
	Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF826759CA2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <C21278D3-BD23-4DF1-87DF-7D243594D42D@ipjustice.org>

fyI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
> Date: June 11, 2013 10:17:41 AM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find the updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
> 
> The wording of the motion in Item 4 has been adjusted.
> In Item 5, the second paragraph now reads:
> Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.
>  
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13jun13-en.htm
> 
> the motions are published on page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-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 11:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 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.
> 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:
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May 2013
> Item 2: Opening remarks from the 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 ? to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions (10 minutes)
> The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity.  The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.
> 
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion of motion.
> 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH).
> 
> Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
> A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.
> Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report 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.
> An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.  
> 
> Motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
> 5.2 Discussion
> 5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)
> Item 6: DISCUSSION ? Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15 mins)
> On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published.  Concerns have been raised within the Council about:
> The nature of the response to this particular request.  Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model.
> More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.
> The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model.
> Item 7: DISCUSSION ? Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15 mins)
> As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review.  In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps.  One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review.
> Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG.
> Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins)
> During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 
>  
> Ideally, input is requested on:
> a)    Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
> b)    Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
> c)     c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
>  
> Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).
>  
> At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may13-en.pdf
> 
> 8.1 Discussion
> 8.2 Next steps ? Any additional action to be taken?
> 8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)
> Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Durban (20 minutes)
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning.  GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort.
> The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council?s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 9.1 ? Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 9.2 ? Discussion
> 9.3 ? Next steps
> Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> 
> 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 11:00 UTC
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 04:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1DST12:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> For other times see:
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130611/4c836b03/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jun 12 05:44:46 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:44:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
Message-ID: <18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>

Hi,

Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.

 I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
> 
> oh, and the deadline is today.
> 
> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
> 
> submit or no?
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>> 
>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>> 
>> This is what I have.
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> avri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From Mary.Wong  Wed Jun 12 05:57:26 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:57:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ... 


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:  
6/11/2013 10:45 PM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA 

Hi

Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.

I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> oh, and the deadline is today.
>
> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>
> submit or no?
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>
>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>
>> This is what I have.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130611/cbe4c503/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Wed Jun 12 10:45:59 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:45:59 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
In-Reply-To: <51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>

Hi

While there has not been clear 'yes' statements from our Councilors on this list, taking into account the totality of dialogue in all relevant spaces one could arguably infer a rough consensus for the two statements.  However, if that's too fast and loose with the rules for you all, I would ask that Mary's ATRT statement be repurposed for submission on behalf of NCUC.  The process NCUC has followed over the years for declaring rough consensus on statements is rather more elastic and "sense of the room" oriented, by necessity given our lack of a PC, so we could send this our EC and members lists and if nobody disagrees by tomorrow send it off.  NCUC has a Constituency Day meeting with the ATRT and at present we have no input of any kind to discuss with them, which is a bit embarrassing and dysfunctional in terms of the conversation.  Mary's statement puts on the table our concerns with the GAC communique and Reconsideration request, and it would be really useful to be able to take those up with ATRT on the basis of a submission.

Thanks,

Bill



On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ... 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 6/11/2013 10:45 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
> Hi
> 
> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
> 
> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > hi,
> >
> > oh, and the deadline is today.
> >
> > sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
> >
> > submit or no?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
> >>
> >> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
> >>
> >> This is what I have.
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> avri
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch  
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130612/dbb45cde/attachment.html>


From dave  Wed Jun 12 11:24:56 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:24:56 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
In-Reply-To: <5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <D327A180-1278-4532-91D1-5B639B8019E5@difference.com.au>

This Councillors is happy to support both Mary's ARTR statement and Avri's statement on RA. 

Regards

	David

On 12/06/2013, at 3:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> While there has not been clear 'yes' statements from our Councilors on this list, taking into account the totality of dialogue in all relevant spaces one could arguably infer a rough consensus for the two statements.  However, if that's too fast and loose with the rules for you all, I would ask that Mary's ATRT statement be repurposed for submission on behalf of NCUC.  The process NCUC has followed over the years for declaring rough consensus on statements is rather more elastic and "sense of the room" oriented, by necessity given our lack of a PC, so we could send this our EC and members lists and if nobody disagrees by tomorrow send it off.  NCUC has a Constituency Day meeting with the ATRT and at present we have no input of any kind to discuss with them, which is a bit embarrassing and dysfunctional in terms of the conversation.  Mary's statement puts on the table our concerns with the GAC communique and Reconsideration request, and it would be really useful to be able to take those up with ATRT on the basis of a submission.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ... 
>> 
>> 
>> 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:
>> 6/11/2013 10:45 PM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
>> Hi
>> 
>> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
>> 
>> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > oh, and the deadline is today.
>> >
>> > sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>> >
>> > submit or no?
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>> >>
>> >> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>> >>
>> >> This is what I have.
>> >>
>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>
>> >> avri
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> 
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch  
> www.williamdrake.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/20130612/1732bd45/attachment-0001.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Wed Jun 12 11:38:02 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:38:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>
	<D327A180-1278-4532-91D1-5B639B8019E5@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B66@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I join David by giving my full support to the two statements.
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Mi 12.06.2013 10:24
An: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement


This Councillors is happy to support both Mary's ARTR statement and Avri's statement on RA.  

Regards

David

On 12/06/2013, at 3:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:


	Hi 

	While there has not been clear 'yes' statements from our Councilors on this list, taking into account the totality of dialogue in all relevant spaces one could arguably infer a rough consensus for the two statements.  However, if that's too fast and loose with the rules for you all, I would ask that Mary's ATRT statement be repurposed for submission on behalf of NCUC.  The process NCUC has followed over the years for declaring rough consensus on statements is rather more elastic and "sense of the room" oriented, by necessity given our lack of a PC, so we could send this our EC and members lists and if nobody disagrees by tomorrow send it off.  NCUC has a Constituency Day meeting with the ATRT and at present we have no input of any kind to discuss with them, which is a bit embarrassing and dysfunctional in terms of the conversation.  Mary's statement puts on the table our concerns with the GAC communique and Reconsideration request, and it would be really useful to be able to take those up with ATRT on the basis of a submission.

	Thanks,

	Bill



	On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:


		Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ... 
		
		
		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: 
6/11/2013 10:45 PM 
Subject: 
Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA 
Hi

Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.

I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> oh, and the deadline is today.
>
> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>
> submit or no?
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>
>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>
>> This is what I have.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
		


	**********************************************************
	William J. Drake
	International Fellow & Lecturer
	  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
	  University of Zurich, Switzerland
	Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
	  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> 
	william.drake at uzh.ch  
	www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
	***********************************************************
	

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





From Mary.Wong  Wed Jun 12 15:57:38 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:57:38 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B66@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>
	<D327A180-1278-4532-91D1-5B639B8019E5@difference.com.au>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B66@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <51B838020200005B000AB060@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Thanks! That's two out of six Councilors, NCUC Chair, me and Avri.
Probably not enough for an NCSG PC consensus :(  ...  

Given that this is the third time the draft statement has been sent
around, this will go in as an NCUC statement UNLESS there's a couple
more Yeas today. 

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:  
"Kleinw?chter,
Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 

To: 
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, NCSG-Policy Policy
<PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
6/12/2013 4:39 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement 

I join David by giving my full support to the two statements

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Mi 12.06.2013 10:24
An: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement


This Councillors is happy to support both Mary's ARTR statement and
Avri's statement on RA. 

Regards

David

On 12/06/2013, at 3:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:


    Hi

    While there has not been clear 'yes' statements from our Councilors
on this list, taking into account the totality of dialogue in all
relevant spaces one could arguably infer a rough consensus for the two
statements.  However, if that's too fast and loose with the rules for
you all, I would ask that Mary's ATRT statement be repurposed for
submission on behalf of NCUC.  The process NCUC has followed over the
years for declaring rough consensus on statements is rather more elastic
and "sense of the room" oriented, by necessity given our lack of a PC,
so we could send this our EC and members lists and if nobody disagrees
by tomorrow send it off.  NCUC has a Constituency Day meeting with the
ATRT and at present we have no input of any kind to discuss with them,
which is a bit embarrassing and dysfunctional in terms of the
conversation.  Mary's statement puts on the table our concerns with the
GAC communique and Reconsideration request, and it would be really
useful to be able to
  take those up with ATRT on the basis of a submission.

    Thanks,

    Bill



    On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:


        Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ...
        
        
        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:
6/11/2013 10:45 PM
Subject:
Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
Hi

Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to
send it in.  I haven't.

I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> oh, and the deadline is today.
>
> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>
> submit or no?
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed.
I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found
little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against
unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>
>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should
submit what I have.
>>
>> This is what I have.
>>
>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
        


    **********************************************************
    William J. Drake
    International Fellow & Lecturer
      Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
      University of Zurich, Switzerland
    Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
      ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
    william.drake at uzh.ch 
    www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.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/20130612/56c8339b/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jun 12 16:05:15 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:05:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
In-Reply-To: <51B838020200005B000AB060@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<51B7AB560200005B000AB029@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<5DF63E0E-2398-40B7-A32D-C920823059AF@uzh.ch>
	<D327A180-1278-4532-91D1-5B639B8019E5@difference.com.au>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B66@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<51B838020200005B000AB060@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <C8962CA9-985A-4E7A-A9EA-5A4A8BE7BFB7@acm.org>

Hi,

I think we have Robin's support , but she hasn't actually said so.

And would love to have someone from the NPOC side concur.

I must admit, I played fast and loose and submitted the RA one as an NCSG response.
I took Alternate Chair's prerogative.
And I will ask to remove it if I get told to do so by the group.

However, because of my ATRT2 conflict, I am staying out of that stmt.  

avri




On 12 Jun 2013, at 08:57, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> Thanks! That's two out of six Councilors, NCUC Chair, me and Avri. Probably not enough for an NCSG PC consensus :(  ...
> 
> Given that this is the third time the draft statement has been sent around, this will go in as an NCUC statement UNLESS there's a couple more Yeas today.
> 
> 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:
> "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> To:
> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>                  
> Date:
> 6/12/2013 4:39 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
> I join David by giving my full support to the two statements
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von David Cake
> Gesendet: Mi 12.06.2013 10:24
> An: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA => ATRT Statement
> 
> 
> This Councillors is happy to support both Mary's ARTR statement and Avri's statement on RA. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> On 12/06/2013, at 3:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hi
> 
>     While there has not been clear 'yes' statements from our Councilors on this list, taking into account the totality of dialogue in all relevant spaces one could arguably infer a rough consensus for the two statements.  However, if that's too fast and loose with the rules for you all, I would ask that Mary's ATRT statement be repurposed for submission on behalf of NCUC.  The process NCUC has followed over the years for declaring rough consensus on statements is rather more elastic and "sense of the room" oriented, by necessity given our lack of a PC, so we could send this our EC and members lists and if nobody disagrees by tomorrow send it off.  NCUC has a Constituency Day meeting with the ATRT and at present we have no input of any kind to discuss with them, which is a bit embarrassing and dysfunctional in terms of the conversation.  Mary's statement puts on the table our concerns with the GAC communique and Reconsideration request, and it would be really useful to be able to
>   take those up with ATRT on the basis of a submission.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Bill
> 
> 
> 
>     On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>         Also ditto w.r.t. ART2 statement ...
>         
>         
>         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:
> 6/11/2013 10:45 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
> Hi
> 
> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
> 
> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > hi,
> >
> > oh, and the deadline is today.
> >
> > sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
> >
> > submit or no?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
> >>
> >> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
> >>
> >> This is what I have.
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> avri
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>         
> 
> 
>     **********************************************************
>     William J. Drake
>     International Fellow & Lecturer
>       Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>       University of Zurich, Switzerland
>     Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>       ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>     william.drake at uzh.ch 
>     www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.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 robin  Wed Jun 12 18:22:32 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:22:32 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>

Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.

Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?

Thanks,
Robin


On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
> 
> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> oh, and the deadline is today.
>> 
>> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>> 
>> submit or no?
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>> 
>>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>> 
>>> This is what I have.
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Wed Jun 12 18:48:30 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:48:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <E8EF8A71-4EBE-49BE-8A12-65E6AD51AD5E@isoc.be>

Dear all,

Consulting my colleagues first, I intend to agree with the proposed statement. Just allow me to consult my colleagues, I'm confident they will concur with the positioning. I'll be back on the list in an hour or 2.

Kind regards,

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC policy committee
NPOC acting treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be



Op 12-jun.-2013, om 17:22 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.
> 
> Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
>> 
>> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> oh, and the deadline is today.
>>> 
>>> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>>> 
>>> submit or no?
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>>> 
>>>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>>> 
>>>> This is what I have.
>>>> 
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130612/7ba5a932/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Wed Jun 12 23:37:31 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:37:31 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>

Dear Robin,
Dear all,

I can confirm NPOC support the statement. 

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC policy committee
NPOC acting treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be



Op 12-jun.-2013, om 17:22 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.
> 
> Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
>> 
>> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> oh, and the deadline is today.
>>> 
>>> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>>> 
>>> submit or no?
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>>> 
>>>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>>> 
>>>> This is what I have.
>>>> 
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130612/c29a5f67/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Thu Jun 13 00:43:39 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:43:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
	<ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <51B8B34B0200005B000AB112@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Thanks so much for getting back so quickly, Rudi, and thanks for confirming your support, Robin! Although we have not heard from several of our Councilors, I believe we can say there is rough consensus among the NCSG PC in support of the brief ATRT2 statement. As such I will send it in as an NCSG statement. 

Thanks again, 
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:  
Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> 

To: 
Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

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

Date:  
6/12/2013 4:38 PM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA 

Dear Robin, 

Dear all, 



I can confirm NPOC support the statement.  



Rudi Vansnick 

NPOC policy committee 

NPOC acting treasurer 

rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 







Op 12-jun.-2013, om 17:22 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven: 





Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.

Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?

Thanks,
Robin


On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:




Hi,

Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.

I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:




hi,

oh, and the deadline is today.

sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.

submit or no?

thanks

avri

On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:




Hi

At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.

Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.

This is what I have.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing

avri
 


_______________________________________________
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/20130612/55d7dcd1/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Jun 13 01:06:33 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:06:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
	<ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <2A299627-3697-4AF0-B0E2-4DFD149B29D5@ella.com>

Thanks

avri

On 12 Jun 2013, at 16:37, Rudi Vansnick wrote:

> Dear Robin,
> Dear all,
> 
> I can confirm NPOC support the statement. 
> 
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC policy committee
> NPOC acting treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> 
> 
> 
> Op 12-jun.-2013, om 17:22 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.
>> 
>> Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
>>> 
>>> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> oh, and the deadline is today.
>>>> 
>>>> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>>>> 
>>>> submit or no?
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is what I have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From william.drake  Thu Jun 13 12:55:29 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:55:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
In-Reply-To: <51B8B34B0200005B000AB112@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <87036413-DFF0-48C3-B91D-4BE83C2EA26B@acm.org>
	<BB082472-F3C0-48D3-96B8-33AA2ED91D60@ella.com>
	<18A7C2AC-5CCB-4F25-9BE8-C3B12DFAADEE@acm.org>
	<7820577E-449D-4435-A62D-270B7F633572@ipjustice.org>
	<ABC5FA6C-7E56-4385-9C90-11D85F051D10@isoc.be>
	<51B8B34B0200005B000AB112@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <E0E153C6-FDB0-4A95-8ADF-A527F76D630E@uzh.ch>

Happy endings, and we can still use it as a basis for some discussion in the NCUC/ATRT meeting as well as anything at the SG level.

BD

On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:

> Thanks so much for getting back so quickly, Rudi, and thanks for confirming your support, Robin! Although we have not heard from several of our Councilors, I believe we can say there is rough consensus among the NCSG PC in support of the brief ATRT2 statement. As such I will send it in as an NCSG statement.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 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:
> Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>                  
> To:
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> CC:
> NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>                  
> Date:
> 6/12/2013 4:38 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [PC-NCSG] Statement on RA
> Dear Robin,
> Dear all,
> 
> I can confirm NPOC support the statement. 
> 
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC policy committee
> NPOC acting treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> 
> 
> 
> Op 12-jun.-2013, om 17:22 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear on yesterday's call that I'm supportive of the statement also.
>> 
>> Is there some reason most of our GNSO Councilors are not weighing in these drafts so they can be submitted?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Deadline has gone by, but I still don't feel I have NCSG-PC decision to send it in.  I haven't.
>>> 
>>> I may be able to submit late, but then again, may not.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> oh, and the deadline is today.
>>>> 
>>>> sorry, but i had given up until the meeting today.
>>>> 
>>>> submit or no?
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this today's policy meeting a public comment on RA was discussed. I reported that I had given up trying to write one, because I found little to say other than that we support the Verisign position against unilateralism by ICANN staff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others argued that this was important to say and that I should submit what I have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is what I have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KpGVEX0-VKWP6SusSm4z8YVA_BFsqJ3WB3jTJdOWdlw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130613/189fbf39/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jun 17 00:30:20 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:30:20 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft letter to ICANN Board on request for dialogue on
	BGC decision that staff can over-rule community on policy
Message-ID: <4F51F469-44AE-4EED-8ADA-ABCE316A1FC9@IPJUSTICE.ORG>

Dear All,

In follow-up to our discussion last week, below is the draft of my letter to the ICANN Board regarding the BGC's decision on our recon request.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions for edits to the draft in the next day so I can send it out to the board asap to get a dialogue going on this.

Thanks,
Robin

==========================

Dear ICANN Board of Directors:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  

The GNSO Council expressed concern about the decision at length during its 11 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding of some of the concerns of members of the community from several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  

The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model from the unique bottom-up community-led model to top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this decision is adopted by the board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability label itself as a community-led bottom-up policy development model for Internet governance.

We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 decisions of the BGC that came before it in the last ten years, there is concern in the community that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  There is also concern about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism that allows the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later decide on the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.

We therefore request that the Board meet with members of the community including NCSG who are concerned about the implications of the rationale provided by this decision to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the community concerns and allow for appropriate adjustments before it is adopted.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before at the Board's convenience to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community who share NCSG's concerns to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into the Durban ICANN meeting and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.

Truly,
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair

=============================



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130616/fe046fe4/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jun 17 05:08:18 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:08:18 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] BGC to review it's rationale on NCSG recon request on 18
	June.
Message-ID: <86E792C1-FFA4-4E99-B81B-6AB42662282D@ipjustice.org>

fyi:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14679.html

ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives
[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>
RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )

To: "council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:52:06 +0000
Accept-language: en-AU, en-US
In-reply-to: <025e01ce6a7b$53080800$f9181800$@afilias.info>
List-id: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <025e01ce6a7b$53080800$f9181800$@afilias.info>
Sender: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Ac5qdyt3T+aAEACIQv2ye4eW39vq6QAbAk0Q
Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,

For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June 
at 21:00 UTC time.

A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda.   
Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.

I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider 
reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130616/9934546e/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jun 18 03:22:10 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:22:10 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE: Impact
	on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From Rationale
	Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3
Message-ID: <10C2C255-759E-4930-8146-01ED0E92C2CE@ipjustice.org>

Dear Diane, Would you please forward my below email to the entire ICANN Board of Directors at your earliest opportunity?  Thank you very much.  - Robin

======

Dear ICANN Board of Directors:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  

The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  

The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.

We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.

We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.

Truly,
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130617/11839032/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Tue Jun 18 09:46:22 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE:
	Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From
	Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration
	Request 13-3
In-Reply-To: <10C2C255-759E-4930-8146-01ED0E92C2CE@ipjustice.org>
References: <10C2C255-759E-4930-8146-01ED0E92C2CE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <512C0CF4-D32E-42D9-97BE-286C71A03D22@uzh.ch>

Definitely the right way to proceed here, imagine they'll say yes.  Need a coordinated strategy with Jeff et al.  CD or separate?

BD


On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear Diane, Would you please forward my below email to the entire ICANN Board of Directors at your earliest opportunity?  Thank you very much.  - Robin
> 
> ======
> 
> Dear ICANN Board of Directors:
> 
> I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  
> 
> The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  
> 
> The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.
> 
> We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.
> 
> We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.
> 
> Truly,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch  
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130618/ed7ba981/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Jun 20 18:22:32 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:22:32 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE:
	Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From
	Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration
	Request 13-3
References: <9EED91B0-37C6-4B2A-A83A-5D3555082261@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <52C57FEE-0D59-41A9-AC86-2933A3A4D2FB@ipjustice.org>

Dear Bruce,

Can you please tell me if the Members of ICANN Board of Directors have received NCSG's letter (below) yet, and if not, how can we get our letter to the individual Members of the Board of Directors?

Thank you,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE: Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3
> Date: June 19, 2013 4:18:59 PM PDT
> To: Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder at icann.org>
> 
> Hello Diane,
> 
> Can you confirm if the below email was forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors please?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Dear Diane, Would you please forward my below email to the entire ICANN Board of Directors at your earliest opportunity?  Thank you very much.  - Robin
>> 
>> ======
>> 
>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors:
>> 
>> I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  
>> 
>> The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  
>> 
>> The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.
>> 
>> We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.
>> 
>> We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.
>> 
>> Truly,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130620/791c6cea/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Jun 20 20:25:52 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:25:52 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE:
	Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From
	Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration
	Request 13-3
In-Reply-To: <CDE881A0.5D5A2%diane.schroeder@icann.org>
References: <CDE881A0.5D5A2%diane.schroeder@icann.org>
Message-ID: <DD5E97E8-CB54-4E8E-AF23-9D8385EDFAFD@ipjustice.org>

Dear Michelle,

Can you please confirm that NCSG's letter to the Board has been sent to the Members of the Board of Directors and that it will be posted to ICANN's correspondence page?

Thank you,
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair


On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Diane Schroeder wrote:

> Dear Robin ? I am no longer working with the Board ? I transitioned to a new job last February.  I have forwarded your note on to Michelle Bright for handling ? she is copied above.  Regards Diane
> 
> Diane Schroeder
> Director of Administration & ICANN Archivist
> 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Ste 300
> Los Angeles, California 90094-2536
> Main Phone - +1-310-301-5800
> Direct - +1-310-301-5827
> Fax - +1-310-823-8649
> Mobile - +1-562-644-2524
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:18 PM
> To: Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE: Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3
> 
> Hello Diane,
> 
> Can you confirm if the below email was forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors please?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Dear Diane, Would you please forward my below email to the entire ICANN Board of Directors at your earliest opportunity?  Thank you very much.  - Robin
>> 
>> ======
>> 
>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors:
>> 
>> I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  
>> 
>> The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  
>> 
>> The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.
>> 
>> We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.
>> 
>> We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.
>> 
>> Truly,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130620/e8811b34/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Jun 21 04:13:36 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:13:36 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE:
	Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From
	Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration
	Request 13-3
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E5190FA@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <D2DD305E-C4F4-4A20-8853-0F20F54AF684@ipjustice.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: RE: NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE: Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3
> Date: June 20, 2013 5:44:29 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
>>> Can you please tell me if the Members of ICANN Board of Directors have received NCSG's letter (below) yet, and if not, how can we get our letter to the individual Members of the Board of Directors?
> 
> 
> I saw your letter at  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2013-06-17-NCSG-Request-to-Board-for-Community-Discussion and forwarded to the ICANN Board mailing list yesterday.
> 
> Note that Diane Schroeder is no longer in the role as Board support.   Diane is now Director, Administration & Archivist.
> 
> Michelle Bright is currently Interim Director of Board support:  michelle.bright at icann.org
> 
> The Board would certainly be interested in discussing your concerns about the multi-stakeholder model at our meeting in Durban.
> 
> I am also open to meeting with the NCSG beforehand to discuss further - particular with respect to the BGC.
> 
> In terms of the rationale for the recent reconsideration request - this is currently being reviewed, and the BGC is next meeting on 25 June 2013 to discuss.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130620/4b025830/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Jun 21 14:37:55 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:37:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Schedule Change for NCSG PC Meeting in Durban
Message-ID: <A01809A6-CF4C-4966-918E-5D847D590C43@uzh.ch>

Hi

I just got off a long call with Glen about the schedule for Durban.  They moved the close generic workshop and we had to sort that out.  In addition, we discussed the scheduling of the NCSG PC meeting.  You will recall that CSG had proposed (if I recall correctly, Robin forwarded a message from Marilyn a month or two back) that the SGs have time on the weekend to meet in advance of CD, rather than having Council take up two full days.  When this came up, everyone on our side who responded expressed support for the idea.  NCSG PC meetings have conflicted with the opening ceremonies etc, which is a drag, so meeting Sunday instead would seem better for all.  Less time in Council for Councilors as well, maybe encouraging some efficiency there.

I gather Wolf Ulrich must have pursued this on the Council list, though I didn't see it, don't have time to read that often.  In any event, it was apparently agreed, and so Sunday the Council finishes 4pm and CSG meets privately 4-6:30pm.  So based on the views expressed previously on our side, I suggested that if that's happening we might as well do our thing at the same time.  So Glen has put in a request to move the NCSG PC meeting from 9:30-11:30 Monday to  4-6:30pm Sunday.

I hope this is ok with everyone.  If someone now doesn't like it anymore please say so and we can ask Glen to revert.

Also, I can't write to the NCSG EC list but maybe someone here can pass this along, that meeting is currently 10-12pm Thursday, but conflicts with both the GNSO wrap up session and the ATRT.  If the EC wanted to meet earlier than GNSO that'd be sensible one would think, but someone would need to talk to Glen about it.  Given absences, NPOC's election, etc. I don't know how this meeting will be planned and run but assume it's being worked out?

Best,

Bill



**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch  
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130621/27c73a62/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Sat Jun 22 10:37:07 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:37:07 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: requested changes confirmed
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF82675A160@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <9325D600-3E7F-4AF2-AEBD-0879B1F66901@uzh.ch>



> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: requested changes confirmed
> Date: June 21, 2013 8:33:08 PM GMT+01:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> 
> Hi Bill,
>  
> These changes that we spoke about earlier have been confirmed:
>  
> Confirmed:
> Debate on "Closed" gTLDs WEDNESDAY 17 July at 13:30-15:00
>  
>  
> Confirmed  
> Sunday 14 July, NCSG Policy Committee 16:00-18:30 (Private meeting with all that has been asked on the form, that is Verizon transcription, Verizon  telephone line,  recording from the Adobe Connect, private audio streaming)
>  
> Thanks and enjoy the weekend!
>  
> Warm regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130622/82976f92/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Jun 26 19:15:04 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:15:04 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] request for update on BGC rationale 13-3 discussion
Message-ID: <8B11DDF8-8469-4E12-89DC-0EAE13FADF35@ipjustice.org>

Dear Bruce,

I understand the BGC met yesterday and discussed NCSG's reconsideration request and the rationale supplied in BGC's earlier recommendation.  Is there any news on this discussion and whether the board will hold a community-wide discussion on the topic of the decision's rationale in Durban?

Also, when do the meeting minutes from the BGC's 18 June meeting get posted to the web?   We are all very eager for any news on what is happening on this issue within ICANN so any info you can tell us would be most appreciated.  Thank you.

Best,
Robin Gross


From robin  Thu Jun 27 01:48:05 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:48:05 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban
Message-ID: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>

Wendy, Avri, and All,

As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  

As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 

Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.

Thanks,
Robin


From rudi.vansnick  Thu Jun 27 01:54:17 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:54:17 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban
In-Reply-To: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <8667FB9B-0844-4313-84A1-3A9F8664F062@isoc.be>

If such is needed, I'm in Durban and willing to assist in any PC meeting.

Kind regards,

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC policy committee
NPOC acting treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be



Op 27-jun.-2013, om 00:48 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Wendy, Avri, and All,
> 
> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
> 
> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
> 
> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130627/1f772263/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Jun 27 06:56:10 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:56:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban
In-Reply-To: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>

Hi,

As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.

Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who has to wear the heels?

avri



On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:

> Wendy, Avri, and All,
> 
> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
> 
> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
> 
> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Thu Jun 27 07:36:51 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:36:51 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: request for update on BGC rationale 13-3 discussion
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E52CEE4@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <25E59D10-A7E7-4B9F-8EF8-B8A6F31970B4@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: RE: request for update on BGC rationale 13-3 discussion
> Date: June 26, 2013 9:03:01 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>, "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
> 
>>> I understand the BGC met yesterday and discussed NCSG's reconsideration request and the rationale supplied in BGC's earlier recommendation.  Is there any news on this discussion and whether the board will hold a community-wide discussion on the topic of the decision's rationale in Durban?
> 
> The BGC approved a revised version of the rationale, taking into account recent community feedback.   I expect that this will be published at:
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration   shortly.
> 
> The BGC also decided to send to the Board's new gTLD Program Committee for approval.  I expect that this will be at their next meeting - which I expect will be early July.  Once the meeting is confirmed, the details should be available here:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings
> 
> The Board is certainly open to discuss the issues associated with and lessons learned with this reconsideration request at its meetings in Durban.  The Board will be meeting with the non-commercial stakeholder group as usual, and I assume we will also meet with the GNSO, and of course have a public forum later in the week.
> 
>> .  Also, when do the meeting minutes from the BGC's 18 June meeting get posted to the web?   We are all very eager for any news on what is happening on this issue within ICANN so any info you can tell us would be most appreciated.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Normally once the staff have produced the minutes - they are sent to the BGC mailing list for approval via email.  They require approval from all members via email.  If we don't get full approval via email, then we approve as the first item of the agenda at the next meeting.   I expect that the latest they will be published will be after the BGC meeting in Durban - which is scheduled during the 1st weekend of the meeting.   I will post them on as soon as I am informed they have been published.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130626/f8d7627f/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Jun 27 21:13:59 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:13:59 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban
In-Reply-To: <DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
	<DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
Message-ID: <5948A068-2B5E-421A-BC64-BF0B7F8F3349@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri!  Would you also co-chair (with Steve Crocker) for the NCSG discussion with the Board on Tuesday afternoon (immediately after the NCSG mtg)?  You are wearing the heels (or sandals if you prefer) on Tuesday in Durban.  :-)

Thanks again!
Robin

On Jun 26, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.
> 
> Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who has to wear the heels?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Wendy, Avri, and All,
>> 
>> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
>> 
>> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
>> 
>> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 




From wendy  Fri Jun 28 00:31:51 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:31:51 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban -- more regrets
In-Reply-To: <DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
	<DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
Message-ID: <51CCAF47.2030904@seltzer.com>

Because of a W3C face-to-face at the same time (and an increasing press
of issues there) I will not be able to travel to Durban. I will work to
participate remotely, especially over the weekend, but would welcome
coordination assistance on the ground.

Thanks, and apologies,
--Wendy

On 06/26/2013 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.
> 
> Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who has to wear the heels?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Wendy, Avri, and All,
>>
>> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
>>
>> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
>>
>> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 robin  Fri Jun 28 02:36:21 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:36:21 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on Reconsideration Request 13-3
In-Reply-To: <CDF1D13E.1E4D3%reconsideration@icann.org>
References: <CDF1D13E.1E4D3%reconsideration@icann.org>
Message-ID: <AFBA1B6D-150A-4381-9528-3047EC03B077@ipjustice.org>

ICANN,

I get a broken link when I click on the file below for the revised recommendation.  Can you please confirm where this doc is posted?

Thanks,
Robin

On Jun 27, 2013, at 4:32 PM, reconsideration wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> This is to inform you the the BGC has taken a second review the Non-Commerical Stakeholder Group's Reconsideration Request (Request 13-3), which was filed on 19 April 2013.  The 16 May 2013 BGC Recommendation relating to Request 13-3 was revoked, and a Revised BGC Recommendation relating to Request 13-3 was reached.  The Revised BGC Recommendation can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf
> 
> Note that the Revised BGC Recommendation will now be submitted to the New gTLD Program Committee for review during a Committee meeting as soon as practicable and feasible.
> 
> Once the New gTLD Program Committee makes a decision on the BGC Recommendation it will be reflected on the same page as the Request and the BGC Recommendation at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration and you will be notified shortly after the New gTLD Program Committee's decision is posted.
> 
> Thank you.  
> 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, California  90094
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130627/42c89a51/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Jun 28 12:31:08 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:31:08 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban -- more regrets
In-Reply-To: <51CCAF47.2030904@seltzer.com>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
	<DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
	<51CCAF47.2030904@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <AE39E830-A039-4A3B-9DF9-923A9B3C8290@uzh.ch>

Bummer.  Wow, we are really going to be thinly represented in Durban.

Wendy have you been in touch with Constituency Travel so they'll be prepared to reallocate the slot if we can find someone?  Ed Morris just did.

So NCSG needs heels and agenda for the PC meeting, plus topics for Board and Alac meets?

BD

On Jun 27, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> Because of a W3C face-to-face at the same time (and an increasing press
> of issues there) I will not be able to travel to Durban. I will work to
> participate remotely, especially over the weekend, but would welcome
> coordination assistance on the ground.
> 
> Thanks, and apologies,
> --Wendy
> 
> On 06/26/2013 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.
>> 
>> Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who has to wear the heels?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Wendy, Avri, and All,
>>> 
>>> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
>>> 
>>> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
>>> 
>>> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch  
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************




From robin  Fri Jun 28 22:02:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:02:42 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban -- more regrets
In-Reply-To: <AE39E830-A039-4A3B-9DF9-923A9B3C8290@uzh.ch>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
	<DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
	<51CCAF47.2030904@seltzer.com>
	<AE39E830-A039-4A3B-9DF9-923A9B3C8290@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <18A9F740-14E4-467A-9E0A-580219506206@ipjustice.org>

Wendy,

It is a bummer you won't be in Durban but I'll try to re-allocate your travel slot to Durban to another NCSG member who can come on short notice.  And if you would please let me know who you find to chair in your place during the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday in Durban, we can work with them to get an agenda for the PC meeting together.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:31 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Bummer.  Wow, we are really going to be thinly represented in Durban.
> 
> Wendy have you been in touch with Constituency Travel so they'll be prepared to reallocate the slot if we can find someone?  Ed Morris just did.
> 
> So NCSG needs heels and agenda for the PC meeting, plus topics for Board and Alac meets?
> 
> BD
> 
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> Because of a W3C face-to-face at the same time (and an increasing press
>> of issues there) I will not be able to travel to Durban. I will work to
>> participate remotely, especially over the weekend, but would welcome
>> coordination assistance on the ground.
>> 
>> Thanks, and apologies,
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 06/26/2013 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.
>>> 
>>> Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who has to wear the heels?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Wendy, Avri, and All,
>>>> 
>>>> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event.  
>>>> 
>>>> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy? 
>>>> 
>>>> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch  
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>