[PC-NCSG] proposed text for joint statement of ALAC & NCSG
Robin Gross
robin
Wed Jun 5 22:29:01 EEST 2013
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>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list