From rafik.dammak  Wed Apr  1 15:28:53 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:28:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>
	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>
	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>
	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

since there was no "additional" risk or rewording here, can I send the list
since the deadline is today?

Best,

Rafik

2015-03-14 17:31 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hi
>
> David Olive has written again to chairs asking for input on ?enterprise
> risks? by 1 April.  At
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en.pdf you
> will find the staff?s own construction of what these risks entail.  There
> are some areas of connection to things we?ve said here and some
> disjunctures.  Why staff should be doing this rather than the community is
> a whole other question.
>
> We are supposed to provide 5.  If we come to agreement on just 5 then
> Rafik can submit them on behalf of NCSG.  If we identify more than 5 we
> want to highlight than NCUC and NPOC can provide additional listings.
> Either way, the process needs coordination.
>
> In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.
>
> 1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of ICANN
> as an corporation with ?enterprise risks? rather than a community-driven
> global governance mechanism with global public responsibilities and
> associated risks.
>
> 2.  There?s a risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN
> will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in
> California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in
> some other jurisdiction.
>
> 3.  There?s a risk of a  lack of confidence in the domain name system as
> adequately protecting consumer security and privacy leading to widespread
> adoption of alternative mechanisms.
>
> 4. There?s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as driving
> ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is not focussed on
> ICANNs core mission.
>
> 5.  There?s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion outside
> ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example, ICANNs fate being
> part of US congressional politics is an example of this form of risk.
>
>
> Please compare these to the staff list, see if there?s tweaks/additions to
> suggest, and we can go from there.  We have two weeks.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150401/4d13591b/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Wed Apr  1 16:30:07 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:30:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551BF2DF.304@yorku.ca>

As some who occasionally bashes ICANN, and especially the Board, for 
ignoring the consequences of its actions, or lack thereof, and getting a 
few brick bats in return, I think this is about as good a list as we 
could come up with and I support sending this list as it is. Of course, 
if they had asked for 50 rather than 5 :-)

Sam L.

On 01/04/2015 8:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> since there was no "additional" risk or rewording here, can I send the 
> list since the deadline is today?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>     *In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.*
>
>     1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think
>     of ICANN as an corporation with ?enterprise risks? rather than a
>     community-driven global governance mechanism with global public
>     responsibilities and associated risks.
>
>     2.  There?s a risk that once the tie to the US government is
>     severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under
>     antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA
>     (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.
>
>     3.  There?s a risk of a  lack of confidence in the domain name
>     system as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy
>     leading to widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms.
>
>     4. There?s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as
>     driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is
>     not focussed on ICANNs core mission.
>
>     5.  There?s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion
>     outside ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example,
>     ICANNs fate being part of US congressional politics is an example
>     of this form of risk.
>
>
>     Please compare these to the staff list, see if there?s
>     tweaks/additions to suggest, and we can go from there.  We have
>     two weeks.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150401/751a579f/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Apr  1 18:27:31 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:27:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <551BF2DF.304@yorku.ca>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BF2DF.304@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <551C0E63.6010404@mail.utoronto.ca>

I was grumpy about the entire risk framework, so I will abstain (or 
rather say given what we had to work with, this is fine).
Steph
On 15-04-01 9:30 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> As some who occasionally bashes ICANN, and especially the Board, for 
> ignoring the consequences of its actions, or lack thereof, and getting 
> a few brick bats in return, I think this is about as good a list as we 
> could come up with and I support sending this list as it is. Of 
> course, if they had asked for 50 rather than 5 :-)
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 01/04/2015 8:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since there was no "additional" risk or rewording here, can I send 
>> the list since the deadline is today?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>     *In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.*
>>
>>     1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think
>>     of ICANN as an corporation with "enterprise risks" rather than a
>>     community-driven global governance mechanism with global public
>>     responsibilities and associated risks.
>>
>>     2.  There's a risk that once the tie to the US government is
>>     severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under
>>     antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA
>>     (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.
>>
>>     3.  There's a risk of a lack of confidence in the domain name
>>     system as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy
>>     leading to widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms.
>>
>>     4. There's a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as
>>     driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is
>>     not focussed on ICANNs core mission.
>>
>>     5.  There's a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion
>>     outside ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example,
>>     ICANNs fate being part of US congressional politics is an example
>>     of this form of risk.
>>
>>
>>     Please compare these to the staff list, see if there's
>>     tweaks/additions to suggest, and we can go from there.  We have
>>     two weeks.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca    Skype: slanfranco
> blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150401/36e030f7/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Apr  1 21:04:31 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:04:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to
	GNSO Members
In-Reply-To: <6fb6d966ec184144b21267e73f981353@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <6fb6d966ec184144b21267e73f981353@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <551C332F.4080403@mail.utoronto.ca>


I am assuming that the EWG effort will soon be arriving at the GNSO.  
Could we add this as an item to discuss at our next NCSG meeting please 
Rafik?  I think we need some kind of strategy, as there will be quite a 
few moving parts to cover.  Meantime, I am mindful that I promised an 
annotated version of the EWG report about 9 months ago so in the context 
of preparing for the Berlin group meeting, I will start work on that 
particular effort.  I hope it will be useful to members who have not had 
the time or the inclination to try to unpack that thing.
Cheers SP
PS if anyone can give me convincing evidence that the EWG report is 
dead, I would be glad to hear it....but since Nominet is citing it in 
their call for comments on WHOIS, I think it is risky to make that 
assumption.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members
Date: 	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:46:34 +0000
From: 	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>



Dear Stephanie, FYI

Kind regards,

Glen

*From:*Charla Shambley
*Sent:* mercredi 1 avril 2015 19:02
*To:* Glen de Saint G?ry
*Subject:* RE: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members

It probably is not going to be rescheduled.

*From:*Glen de Saint G?ry
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:01 AM
*To:* Charla Shambley
*Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry
*Subject:* FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members

Dear Charla,

Could you please give us an idea when of the call will be rescheduled?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,

Glen

*From:*Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
*Sent:* mercredi 1 avril 2015 17:02
*To:* Glen de Saint G?ry
*Subject:* Re: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members

Any idea when it will be rescheduled Glen?
Stephanie

On 15-04-01 4:23 AM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote:

    *Please note that this call has been cancelled.*

    Thank you.

    Kind regards,

    Glen

    *Date*:     1 April

    *Time*:    19:00-20:30 UTC

    Noon-1:30 pm (PT)

    3:00-4:30 pm (ET)

                     Or find your local time: Local Time
    <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Board%2FGNSO+EWG+WG+-+Call+07&iso=20150401T19&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>


    *Wiki info*:
    https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49359624

    *Agenda:*

    ? Final Approval for the updated Framework
    ? Final Approval for the Transmittal Letter


          REMOTE PARTICIPATION DETAILS

    *Link to Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ewgprocesswg/

    Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you
    the option to _Dial Out_ to your Phone.  Enter your Phone Number*
    (remember to change the Country Code if needed).  You will join as a
    ?listen only? participant.

    *If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via
    phone*, find your local dial in number here*: **International
    Dial-In Numbers*
    <https://mtginfo.pgi.com/globalcallmanagement.asp?bwebid=9820041&cid=da68e6b9d7ed5a11d77cfcec4d4d&confid=da66e6b8d7ec5a12d77cfce84d48&brandid=1>**and
    enter Participant Passcode:*593 915 3756* when prompted.

    Thank you.

    Kind regards,

    Glen

    Glen de Saint G?ry

    GNSO Secretariat

    gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
    <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>

    http://gnso.icann.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150401/5d064edb/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Apr  2 00:10:10 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 23:10:10 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
	ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <551C0E63.6010404@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BF2DF.304@yorku.ca> <551C0E63.6010404@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <E4C91DE8-70AB-4480-A041-EB4BE18DD1A1@egyptig.org>

I?m fine with the list.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 1, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I was grumpy about the entire risk framework, so I will abstain (or rather say given what we had to work with, this is fine).
> Steph
> On 15-04-01 9:30 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> As some who occasionally bashes ICANN, and especially the Board, for ignoring the consequences of its actions, or lack thereof, and getting a few brick bats in return, I think this is about as good a list as we could come up with and I support sending this list as it is. Of course, if they had asked for 50 rather than 5 :-) 
>> 
>> Sam L.
>> 
>> On 01/04/2015 8:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> since there was no "additional" risk or rewording here, can I send the list since the deadline is             today?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.
>>> 
>>> 1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of ICANN as an corporation with ?enterprise risks? rather than a community-driven global governance mechanism with global public responsibilities and associated risks.
>>> 
>>> 2.  There?s a risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.
>>> 
>>> 3.  There?s a risk of a  lack of confidence in the domain name system as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy leading to widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms. 
>>> 
>>> 4. There?s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is not focussed on ICANNs core mission. 
>>> 
>>> 5.  There?s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion outside ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example, ICANNs fate being part of US congressional politics is an example of this form of risk.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please compare these to the staff list, see if there?s tweaks/additions to suggest, and we can go from there.  We have two weeks.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
>> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150401/e59f9c0f/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Apr  2 00:15:05 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 23:15:05 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO
	Members
In-Reply-To: <551C332F.4080403@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <6fb6d966ec184144b21267e73f981353@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<551C332F.4080403@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <C9E3115A-A14D-4DCB-A1AE-F2B8CBA9802B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

My guess would be that we?ll be seeing a preliminary issues report sometime close to the Dublin meeting. I?m guessing we should take a few minutes during the next NCSG call to discuss this. It?s more than likely going to be on the next council meeting agenda. Another update from Susan K.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 
> I am assuming that the EWG effort will soon be arriving at the GNSO.  Could we add this as an item to discuss at our next NCSG meeting please Rafik?  I think we need some kind of strategy, as there will be quite a few moving parts to cover.  Meantime, I am mindful that I promised an annotated version of the EWG report about 9 months ago so in the context of preparing for the Berlin group meeting, I will start work on that particular effort.  I hope it will be useful to members who have not had the time or the inclination to try to unpack that thing.
> Cheers SP
> PS if anyone can give me convincing evidence that the EWG report is dead, I would be glad to hear it....but since Nominet is citing it in their call for comments on WHOIS, I think it is risky to make that assumption.
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members
> Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:46:34 +0000
> From:	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To:	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> 
> 
> Dear Stephanie, FYI
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> From: Charla Shambley 
> Sent: mercredi 1 avril 2015 19:02
> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
> Subject: RE: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members
>  
> It probably is not going to be rescheduled.
>  
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:01 AM
> To: Charla Shambley
> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry
> Subject: FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members
>  
> Dear Charla,
>  
> Could you please give us an idea when of the call will be rescheduled?
>  
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca] 
> Sent: mercredi 1 avril 2015 17:02
> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
> Subject: Re: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites to GNSO Members
>  
> Any idea when it will be rescheduled Glen?
> Stephanie
> On 15-04-01 4:23 AM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote:
> Please note that this call has been cancelled.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> Date:     1 April
> Time:    19:00-20:30 UTC
> Noon-1:30 pm (PT)
>                 3:00-4:30 pm (ET)
>                 Or find your local time: Local Time
> Wiki info: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49359624
>  
> Agenda:
> ? Final Approval for the updated Framework
> ? Final Approval for the Transmittal Letter
> REMOTE PARTICIPATION DETAILS
> Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ewgprocesswg/
> Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone.  Enter your Phone Number* (remember to change the Country Code if needed).  You will join as a ?listen only? participant.
> If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone, find your local dial in number here: International Dial-In Numbers and enter Participant Passcode: 593 915 3756 when prompted.
>  
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.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/20150401/95d1ba02/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Apr  2 16:17:54 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:17:54 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <E4C91DE8-70AB-4480-A041-EB4BE18DD1A1@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>
	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>
	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>
	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnD3gxAbEyeiuQcuxFnWjrZHHTW=aK-RZx5QhsC9asocA@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BF2DF.304@yorku.ca> <551C0E63.6010404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<E4C91DE8-70AB-4480-A041-EB4BE18DD1A1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnoyGCSGobzOwk=7i9pYrtP-eiugzayYEApEy4VZ2p9kQ@mail.gmail.com>

thanks everyone,

Best,

Rafik


2015-04-02 6:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> I?m fine with the list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>  I was grumpy about the entire risk framework, so I will abstain (or
> rather say given what we had to work with, this is fine).
> Steph
> On 15-04-01 9:30 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> As some who occasionally bashes ICANN, and especially the Board, for
> ignoring the consequences of its actions, or lack thereof, and getting a
> few brick bats in return, I think this is about as good a list as we could
> come up with and I support sending this list as it is. Of course, if they
> had asked for 50 rather than 5 :-)
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 01/04/2015 8:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>  Hi everyone,
>
>  since there was no "additional" risk or rewording here, can I send the
> list since the deadline is today?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Rafik
>
>>
>> *In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.*
>>
>>  1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of
>> ICANN as an corporation with ?enterprise risks? rather than a
>> community-driven global governance mechanism with global public
>> responsibilities and associated risks.
>>
>>  2.  There?s a risk that once the tie to the US government is severed
>> ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition
>> law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU
>> 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.
>>
>>  3.  There?s a risk of a  lack of confidence in the domain name system
>> as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy leading to
>> widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms.
>>
>>  4. There?s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as
>> driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is not
>> focussed on ICANNs core mission.
>>
>>  5.  There?s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion outside
>> ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example, ICANNs fate being
>> part of US congressional politics is an example of this form of risk.
>>
>>
>>  Please compare these to the staff list, see if there?s tweaks/additions
>> to suggest, and we can go from there.  We have two weeks.
>>
>>  Thanks
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20150402/507dae17/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Apr  4 00:21:17 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:21:17 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: CANCELLED Board/GNSO EWG Process - Invites
 to GNSO Members
In-Reply-To: <551C332F.4080403@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <6fb6d966ec184144b21267e73f981353@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<551C332F.4080403@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <551F044D.1060201@acm.org>



On 01-Apr-15 14:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> I am assuming that the EWG effort will soon be arriving at the GNSO. 
> Could we add this as an item to discuss at our next NCSG meeting please
> Rafik? 

The output of the EWG-process group is on its way any time now.  Have
attached a copy of the latest revision

I expect the Issues report will show up in June according to the time
table.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RDS-PDP-Process-Draft7-31Mar2015-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 903454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150403/b8055dbb/attachment-0001.pdf>


From aelsadr  Thu Apr 23 14:29:02 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:29:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal
Message-ID: <021FA80C-1CD8-4127-88D6-7BFA0D7B6B4B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

The CWG-Stewardship has published a new draft proposal, which is open for public comment until May 20th, 2015.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en

Avri has already circulated information to NCSG-DISCUSS about a webinar organised by the CWG to present the draft proposal tomorrow. NCSG also plans on holding a webinar on this topic, which may serve as a follow up to tomorrow?s CWG webinar.

It might be a good idea for the members of the PC to pay attention to this process over the next few weeks, in preparation of endorsement of a statement that the NCSG may wish to submit.

Thanks.

Amr


From rafik.dammak  Thu Apr 23 16:41:12 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:12 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal
In-Reply-To: <021FA80C-1CD8-4127-88D6-7BFA0D7B6B4B@egyptig.org>
References: <021FA80C-1CD8-4127-88D6-7BFA0D7B6B4B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=+Hiv5QJFXPQH8uD5+pEYCqFHQkZ6fvAqY8_CYxdn7Og@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

indeed we are aware about this , no excuse to miss such comment.

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-23 20:29 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> The CWG-Stewardship has published a new draft proposal, which is open for
> public comment until May 20th, 2015.
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>
> Avri has already circulated information to NCSG-DISCUSS about a webinar
> organised by the CWG to present the draft proposal tomorrow. NCSG also
> plans on holding a webinar on this topic, which may serve as a follow up to
> tomorrow?s CWG webinar.
>
> It might be a good idea for the members of the PC to pay attention to this
> process over the next few weeks, in preparation of endorsement of a
> statement that the NCSG may wish to submit.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150423/bccc0279/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Apr 27 13:58:06 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:58:06 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations
 on new gTLD auction proceeds
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we got some appointment to do here asap for the drafting of the new gTLD
auction WG. as you will see below, they want to kick-off next week 4th may

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2015-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00
Subject: RE: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
proceeds
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>


 Dear Rafik,



*A Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of
new gTLD auction proceeds *



To follow up on my earlier communication of 2 March 2015 in relation to the
possible creation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a
plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, I wanted to inform you that
the GNSO Council discussed this topic further during its meeting of 19
March 2015. The Council reviewed the feedback received from all the GNSO
Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other Supporting
Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-recs-responses-19mar15-en.pdf).
On the basis of that review, the GNSO Council decided to move forward with
the creation of a CCWG by, as a first step, forming a drafting team to
develop a proposed charter for such a CCWG, which could then be considered
by all SO/ACs interested in participating.

As such, I would like to invite your constituency/Stakeholder Group to
designate one or two members to this drafting team effort. In preparing the
charter to address this issue, the Drafting Team is expected to develop the
framework under which the future CWG will operate. This includes elements
such as the mission, purpose, deliverables, as well as the guidelines for
formation, staffing, organization, and overall rules of engagement.
Following the completion of the work of the drafting team, the proposed
charter for the CCWG will be submitted to all interested SO/ACs for their
consideration.

Please provide the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) as
soon as possible with the names of those that are interested to join this
drafting team. We intend to kick off the efforts of the drafting team in
the week commencing 4th May 2015.

Sincerely,





Jonathan Robinson

Chair, GNSO Council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/5a72b88d/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Apr 27 15:32:25 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:32:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Shouldn?t this be announced on the NCSG-DISCUSS list? Is there anyone on this list who would like to volunteer to be a member of this drafting team?

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> we got some appointment to do here asap for the drafting of the new gTLD auction WG. as you will see below, they want to kick-off next week 4th may
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2015-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00
> Subject: RE: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
>  
> 
> A Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds
> 
>  
> 
> To follow up on my earlier communication of 2 March 2015 in relation to the possible creation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, I wanted to inform you that the GNSO Council discussed this topic further during its meeting of 19 March 2015. The Council reviewed the feedback received from all the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-recs-responses-19mar15-en.pdf). On the basis of that review, the GNSO Council decided to move forward with the creation of a CCWG by, as a first step, forming a drafting team to develop a proposed charter for such a CCWG, which could then be considered by all SO/ACs interested in participating.  
> 
> As such, I would like to invite your constituency/Stakeholder Group to designate one or two members to this drafting team effort. In preparing the charter to address this issue, the Drafting Team is expected to develop the framework under which the future CWG will operate. This includes elements such as the mission, purpose, deliverables, as well as the guidelines for formation, staffing, organization, and overall rules of engagement. Following the completion of the work of the drafting team, the proposed charter for the CCWG will be submitted to all interested SO/ACs for their consideration.
> 
> Please provide the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) as soon as possible with the names of those that are interested to join this drafting team. We intend to kick off the efforts of the drafting team in the week commencing 4th May 2015. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan Robinson
> 
> Chair, GNSO Council
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/bb79e27e/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Apr 27 15:26:00 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:26:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThknZPRca7=ALEXHuhJnSk3LewgzKr3w1gjtu7ziT_kqMw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I was sending a note here since PC would need a quick action :) but yes it
should be announced in NCSG list

Rafik

2015-04-27 21:32 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Shouldn?t this be announced on the NCSG-DISCUSS list? Is there anyone on
> this list who would like to volunteer to be a member of this drafting team?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> we got some appointment to do here asap for the drafting of the new gTLD
> auction WG. as you will see below, they want to kick-off next week 4th may
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2015-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00
> Subject: RE: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD
> auction proceeds
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
> marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>  Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> *A Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of
> new gTLD auction proceeds *
>
>
>
> To follow up on my earlier communication of 2 March 2015 in relation to
> the possible creation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop
> a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, I wanted to inform you
> that the GNSO Council discussed this topic further during its meeting of 19
> March 2015. The Council reviewed the feedback received from all the GNSO
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other Supporting
> Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-recs-responses-19mar15-en.pdf).
> On the basis of that review, the GNSO Council decided to move forward with
> the creation of a CCWG by, as a first step, forming a drafting team to
> develop a proposed charter for such a CCWG, which could then be considered
> by all SO/ACs interested in participating.
>
> As such, I would like to invite your constituency/Stakeholder Group to
> designate one or two members to this drafting team effort. In preparing the
> charter to address this issue, the Drafting Team is expected to develop the
> framework under which the future CWG will operate. This includes elements
> such as the mission, purpose, deliverables, as well as the guidelines for
> formation, staffing, organization, and overall rules of engagement.
> Following the completion of the work of the drafting team, the proposed
> charter for the CCWG will be submitted to all interested SO/ACs for their
> consideration.
>
> Please provide the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) as
> soon as possible with the names of those that are interested to join this
> drafting team. We intend to kick off the efforts of the drafting team in
> the week commencing 4th May 2015.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> Chair, GNSO Council
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/31ef4c12/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Apr 27 15:44:25 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:44:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate PC Chair
Message-ID: <64EA8442-51DA-4EDE-8398-15D0FE105049@egyptig.org>

Hi,

When I first asked to be considered as the NCSG PC Chair, I had indicated that it would be a good idea to have an alternate Chair to pick up the slack at times I may be unavailable. Well?, this is a pretty good example. Over the next few weeks, I will be very busy (specifically until after May 17th), and am wondering if there is anyone who would be willing to act as an alternate Chair during this time, and beyond if the need should arise.

Thanks.

Amr


From klaus.stoll  Mon Apr 27 16:03:15 2015
From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:03:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>

Hi,

I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.

Yours

Klaus


On 4/27/2015 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Shouldn?t this be announced on the NCSG-DISCUSS list? Is there anyone 
> on this list who would like to volunteer to be a member of this 
> drafting team?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> we got some appointment to do here asap for the drafting of the new 
>> gTLD auction WG. as you will see below, they want to kick-off next 
>> week 4th may
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>> Date: 2015-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: RE: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD 
>> auction proceeds
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info 
>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings 
>> <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, 
>> "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
>> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, 
>> "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 
>> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>" 
>> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 
>> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>> **
>>
>> *A Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use 
>> of new gTLD auction proceeds *
>>
>> To follow up on my earlier communication of 2 March 2015 in relation 
>> to the possible creation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to 
>> develop a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, I wanted to 
>> inform you that the GNSO Council discussed this topic further during 
>> its meeting of 19 March 2015. The Council reviewed the feedback 
>> received from all the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as 
>> well as other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees 
>> (ACs) (see 
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-recs-responses-19mar15-en.pdf). 
>> On the basis of that review, the GNSO Council decided to move forward 
>> with the creation of a CCWG by, as a first step, forming a drafting 
>> team to develop a proposed charter for such a CCWG, which could then 
>> be considered by all SO/ACs interested in participating.
>>
>> As such, I would like to invite your constituency/Stakeholder Group 
>> to designate one or two members to this drafting team effort. In 
>> preparing the charter to address this issue, the Drafting Team is 
>> expected to develop the framework under which the future CWG will 
>> operate. This includes elements such as the mission, purpose, 
>> deliverables, as well as the guidelines for formation, staffing, 
>> organization, and overall rules of engagement. Following the 
>> completion of the work of the drafting team, the proposed charter for 
>> the CCWG will be submitted to all interested SO/ACs for their 
>> consideration.
>>
>> Please provide the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 
>> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>) as soon as possible with 
>> the names of those that are interested to join this drafting team. We 
>> intend to kick off the efforts of the drafting team in the week 
>> commencing 4^th May 2015.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> Chair, GNSO Council
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150427/8b30fdca/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Apr 27 16:17:54 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:17:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>

Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
> 
> Yours
> 
> Klaus
> 
> 
> On 4/27/2015 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Shouldn?t this be announced on the NCSG-DISCUSS list? Is there anyone on this list who would like to volunteer to be a member of this drafting team?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> we got some appointment to do here asap for the drafting of the new gTLD auction WG. as you will see below, they want to kick-off next week 4th may
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Date: 2015-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: RE: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Rafik,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds
>>> 
>>>  
>>> To follow up on my earlier communication of 2 March 2015 in relation to the possible creation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, I wanted to inform you that the GNSO Council discussed this topic further during its meeting of 19 March 2015. The Council reviewed the feedback received from all the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-recs-responses-19mar15-en.pdf). On the basis of that review, the GNSO Council decided to move forward with the creation of a CCWG by, as a first step, forming a drafting team to develop a proposed charter for such a CCWG, which could then be considered by all SO/ACs interested in participating.  
>>> 
>>> As such, I would like to invite your constituency/Stakeholder Group to designate one or two members to this drafting team effort. In preparing the charter to address this issue, the Drafting Team is expected to develop the framework under which the future CWG will operate. This includes elements such as the mission, purpose, deliverables, as well as the guidelines for formation, staffing, organization, and overall rules of engagement. Following the completion of the work of the drafting team, the proposed charter for the CCWG will be submitted to all interested SO/ACs for their consideration.
>>> 
>>> Please provide the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) as soon as possible with the names of those that are interested to join this drafting team. We intend to kick off the efforts of the drafting team in the week commencing 4th May 2015. 
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>> 
>>> Chair, GNSO Council
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150427/95692513/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Mon Apr 27 17:08:05 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:08:05 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThknZPRca7=ALEXHuhJnSk3LewgzKr3w1gjtu7ziT_kqMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThknZPRca7=ALEXHuhJnSk3LewgzKr3w1gjtu7ziT_kqMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <553E42C5.2090007@yorku.ca>

Policy Colleagues,

In response to Amr's query, based on my development economist 
background, I would be willing to be considered for work as a member of 
this drafting team.

Sam L.

/On 27/04/2015 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
/
> /Hi Amr,/
> /
> /
> /I was sending a note here since PC would need a quick action :) but 
> yes it should be announced in NCSG list/
> /
> /
> /Rafik
> /
> /
> /
> /2015-04-27 21:32 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
> /
>
>     /Hi,/
>     /
>     /
>     /Shouldn?t this be announced on the NCSG-DISCUSS list? Is there
>     anyone on this list who would like to volunteer to be a member of
>     this drafting team?/
>     /
>     /
>     /Thanks./
>     /
>
>     Amr
>     /
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/5d8a3ef5/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Mon Apr 27 17:54:59 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:54:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>

All,

I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from 
Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.

Sam

On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on 
> the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll 
> <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org <mailto:klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org>> 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/4c67239e/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Apr 27 18:27:09 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:27:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>

Thanks Sam. Noted.

Amr

On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
> 
> Sam
> 
> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>> 
>>> Yours
>>> 
>>> Klaus
>>> 
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150427/64e3f3e2/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Apr 28 13:07:54 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:07:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have:

1. Klaus Stoll
2. Matthew Shears
3. James Gannon

In addition:

4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks Sam. Noted.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>> 
>> Sam
>> 
>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours
>>>> 
>>>> Klaus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150428/77c05c37/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Apr 29 01:55:55 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:55:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
	Section 1.3.3
In-Reply-To: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>

Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy proxy 
services working group.  While this is very instructive to see how ICANN 
operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC is chairing, we 
need to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push back.  We are on 
our 74th working group meeting apparently now and there is a push for 
closure as you can see below....they want the 100 page report out for 
comment by May 4.  We have been demanding a longer comment period so we 
can reach out to users of privacy proxy services, suggestion is 60 
days.   The issue of use of proxy services by those "conducting 
commercial activity" in the view of facebook and the IPC includes a 
charity asking for donations (even though the financial bit is through 
a  provider service) or an entity of individual serving ads and thereby 
getting micropayments. This is a matter for national law in my view, and 
ICANN should not be dabbling in it.  It guts privacy.  I would remind 
everyone thinking about this for the first time that the argument is 
being made on the basis of a web service paradigm, but it would have to 
be implemented in a way that includes the stockpiling of names that are 
not being actively used, or are only used for email.

Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my 
colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been 
fighting this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on the EWG 
fighting back Facebook on the same issue.
Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short turn 
around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no doubt has 
anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one written just in 
case:-) With respect to strategy.....if we leave this in we have a 
lovely headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy proxy services for 
endangered groups and human rights workers).
cheers Stephanie
PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big 
one....especially with no reply comments period.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
Date: 	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04 +0900
From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: 	gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org



SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked on 
the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not support the 
inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions without the 
opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a fundamental bias.  I 
would prefer to say something along the lines of the use of proxy 
services by commercial entities could be restricted by national law, 
where such law applies.
I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial 
activity.  It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such 
restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over domain 
name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view leading) 
text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing 
statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised to 
see announced at this late date.
cheers Stephanie

On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and 
> to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this 
> afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>
> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we 
> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public 
> comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we 
> have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with 
> the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity 
> of our work once public comments have been received. Specifically, if 
> the public comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after 
> our publication date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least 
> weekly calls throughout July and August, some of which may need to be 
> more than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward 
> a Final Report.  Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting 
> the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin 
> ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many additional steps 
> need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report before 
> any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time pressure 
> imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of 
> next year is already real.
>
> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG 
> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or 
> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public 
> comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no 
> later than Thursday, April 30.
>
> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 
> 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier 
> today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that 
> this section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should 
> take the form of greater concision, not additional presentation of 
> arguments for the divergent positions.  Thus we suggest that section 
> 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:
>
> ---
>
>     Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is
>     registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting
>     commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P services ,
>     there was disagreement over whether domain names that are actively
>     used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of
>     goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P services.
>     While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is
>     necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of
>     such domain names should not be able to use or continue using
>     proxy or privacy services.
>
>     For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit
>     access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the
>     following text was proposed to clarify and define their position:
>     ?domains used for online financial transactions for commercial
>     purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.?
>
>     Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following
>     questions:
>
>       * Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial
>         activities and which are used for online financial
>         transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use,
>         privacy and proxy services?
>       * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of ?commercial?
>         or ?transactional? to define those domains for which P/P
>         service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what
>         should the definition(s) be??
>       * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data
>         fields to be displayed as a result?
>
> ---
> Thanks,
>
> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>
> -- 
> _________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Manager, Management Information Systems
> Manager, Public Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/4b1598e1/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Apr 29 02:57:53 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:57:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and
 Section 1.3.3
In-Reply-To: <55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmNYysHOugVj7viyL8CWhkJqR8kADtj2aFkSD2Qy0ddvw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

thanks for the brief, maybe it is  worthy to remind the WG that 2 critical
tracks within ICANN, IANA and accountability are or going to put reports
for comments during the same timeframe. so it is unrealistic  even within
ICANN community to give input with such constraints.

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-29 7:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy proxy
> services working group.  While this is very instructive to see how ICANN
> operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC is chairing, we need
> to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push back.  We are on our 74th
> working group meeting apparently now and there is a push for closure as you
> can see below....they want the 100 page report out for comment by May 4.
> We have been demanding a longer comment period so we can reach out to users
> of privacy proxy services, suggestion is 60 days.   The issue of use of
> proxy services by those "conducting commercial activity" in the view of
> facebook and the IPC includes a charity asking for donations (even though
> the financial bit is through a  provider service) or an entity of
> individual serving ads and thereby getting micropayments.  This is a matter
> for national law in my view, and ICANN should not be dabbling in it.  It
> guts privacy.  I would remind everyone thinking about this for the first
> time that the argument is being made on the basis of a web service
> paradigm, but it would have to be implemented in a way that includes the
> stockpiling of names that are not being actively used, or are only used for
> email.
>
> Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my
> colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been fighting
> this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on the EWG fighting
> back Facebook on the same issue.
> Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short turn
> around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no doubt has
> anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one written just in case
> :-)   With respect to strategy.....if we leave this in we have a lovely
> headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy proxy services for endangered
> groups and human rights workers).
> cheers Stephanie
> PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big
> one....especially with no reply comments period.
> -------- Forwarded Message --------  Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
> PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3  Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04
> +0900  From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>  To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked on
> the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not support the
> inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions without the
> opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a fundamental bias.  I
> would prefer to say something along the lines of the use of proxy services
> by commercial entities could be restricted by national law, where such law
> applies.
> I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial activity.
> It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such restrictions on Internet
> activity through its limited remit over domain name registration, a point
> which we have made repeatedly.
> If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view leading)
> text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing
> statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised to
> see announced at this late date.
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>
> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to
> Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this afternoon
> to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>
> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we
> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment
> period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all been
> planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat that this
> will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public
> comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline
> is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we
> will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some
> of which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these
> comments and move toward a Final Report.  Otherwise, we jeopardize the
> prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no
> later than the Dublin ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many
> additional steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final
> Report before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time
> pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end
> of next year is already real.
>
> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members
> (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional
> statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next
> Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than
> Thursday, April 30.
>
> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3
> of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today but
> which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that this section
> could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the form of
> greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the
> divergent positions.  Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read
> as follows:
>
> ---
>
>  Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is
> registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial
> activity should not preclude the use of P/P services , there was
> disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for
> commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or services)
> should be prohibited from using P/P services. While most WG members did not
> believe such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed
> that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use or continue
> using proxy or privacy services.
>
> For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access
> to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the following text was
> proposed to clarify and define their position: ?domains used for online
> financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for
> privacy and proxy registrations.?
>
>  Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following
> questions:
>
>
>    - Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial
>    activities and which are used for online financial transactions be
>    prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
>    - If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of ?commercial? or
>    ?transactional? to define those domains for which P/P service registrations
>    should be disallowed? And if so, what should the definition(s) be??
>    - Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields
>    to be displayed as a result?
>
>  ---
> Thanks,
>
> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>
> --
> _________________________
> Graeme Bunton
> Manager, Management Information Systems
> Manager, Public Policy
> Tucows Inc.
> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150429/c7c6333c/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Apr 29 13:27:06 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:27:06 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>
	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>

Hi,

The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:

1. Klaus Stoll
2. James Gannon
3. Paul Rosenzweig
4. Arthur Gwagwa

In addition to:

5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon

I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.

Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have:
> 
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. Matthew Shears
> 3. James Gannon
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>> 
>>> Sam
>>> 
>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yours
>>>>> 
>>>>> Klaus
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150429/92602968/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Apr 29 14:02:56 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:02:56 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
	1.3.3
In-Reply-To: <55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4B99B2CF-3E1C-49D2-890C-BEAA6AF983F4@egyptig.org>

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for forwarding this. I certainly agree with your take on this, although I can see why the many IPC members of the PPSAI-PDP-WG would not. As far as I know there are no laws prohibiting, or even addressing the use of privacy/proxy services by any kind of registrant (commercial or other). I certainly do not agree that ICANN should start classifying registrants based on their intended use of a domain name. I?m actually not sure how a privacy/proxy service provider can do this at the time of registration. Is a registrant supposed to indicate his/her/its intent of use of the domain name at the time of registration? What if the intent changes after registration? Is this a tactic to revoke privacy services from a domain name already using one? And I see no reason why there should be any special consideration for commercial registrants of any kind anyway (I mean in principle). Local laws (as far as I know) require that businesses with a web presence publish contact information on their websites, so as far as local laws are concerned, it?s more of a web content issue than a domain name registration issue.

I find it a bit surprising, with the initial report looming in the near future, that three of the original charter questions have still not been adequately addressed. From your email, I?m guessing there have been significant discussions, but why hasn?t the WG taken a position after all this time? What are the consensus levels looking like around the answers to those questions? What are the RrSG and At-Large folks thinking on these questions?

Also, when you say ?we need to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push back?, what exactly do you mean? Where does the NCSG or NCSG PC fit into this at this time? This is still a WG discussion, right? Soon, we will have the opportunity to comment on the initial report, but is there something you are asking us to do before then?

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy proxy services working group.  While this is very instructive to see how ICANN operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC is chairing, we need to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push back.  We are on our 74th working group meeting apparently now and there is a push for closure as you can see below....they want the 100 page report out for comment by May 4.  We have been demanding a longer comment period so we can reach out to users of privacy proxy services, suggestion is 60 days.   The issue of use of proxy services by those "conducting commercial activity" in the view of facebook and the IPC includes a charity asking for donations (even though the financial bit is through a  provider service) or an entity of individual serving ads and thereby getting micropayments.  This is a matter for national law in my view, and ICANN should not be dabbling in it.  It guts privacy.  I would remind everyone thinking about this for the first time that the argument is being made on the basis of a web service paradigm, but it would have to be implemented in a way that includes the stockpiling of names that are not being actively used, or are only used for email.
> 
> Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been fighting this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on the EWG fighting back Facebook on the same issue.
> Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short turn around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no doubt has anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one written just in case :-)   With respect to strategy.....if we leave this in we have a lovely headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy proxy services for endangered groups and human rights workers).
> cheers Stephanie
> PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big one....especially with no reply comments period.
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
> Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04 +0900
> From:	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> To:	gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> 
> 
> SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked on the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not support the inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions without the opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a fundamental bias.  I would prefer to say something along the lines of the use of proxy services by commercial entities could be restricted by national law, where such law applies.
> I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial activity.  It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over domain name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
> If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view leading) text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised to see announced at this late date.
> cheers Stephanie
> 
> On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>> 
>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we recognize there is considerable support for extending the public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which we have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but with the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and intensity of our work once public comments have been received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline is extended until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these comments and move toward a Final Report.  Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many additional steps need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim Specification at the end of next year is already real. 
>> 
>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no later than Thursday, April 30. 
>> 
>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We agree that this section could benefit from some revision, but believe it should take the form of greater concision, not additional presentation of arguments for the divergent positions.  Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:  
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P services , there was disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P services. While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use or continue using proxy or privacy services.
>> 
>> For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the following text was proposed to clarify and define their position: ?domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.?
>> 
>> Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the following questions:  
>> 
>> Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
>> If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of ?commercial? or ?transactional? to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And if so, what should the definition(s) be??
>> Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result?
>> ---
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>> 
>> -- 
>> _________________________
>> Graeme Bunton
>> Manager, Management Information Systems
>> Manager, Public Policy
>> Tucows Inc.
>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150429/37152a49/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Apr 29 18:53:28 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:53:28 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
 1.3.3
In-Reply-To: <4B99B2CF-3E1C-49D2-890C-BEAA6AF983F4@egyptig.org>
References: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<4B99B2CF-3E1C-49D2-890C-BEAA6AF983F4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5540FE78.6080406@mail.utoronto.ca>

I believe the proposed language is biased, and leading.  It prompts 
people to answer questions that favor the minority who were still 
pushing to ban use for commercial transactions.  Every IP law student in 
American is probably being told to send in their comments on these three 
questions.  IF you are going to ask these three questions to clarify 
their position, then we need three questions on our side (it is late 
here, all i can think of right now is Do you believe in human rights?  
If so, do you think ICANN should protect them or annihilate them?  
(getting a wee bit grumpy with the amount of work coming our way.....:-) )
cheers steph
PS and yes we can leave it in and comment on it, but I think the 
questions in the initial report should be balanced.
On 2015-04-29 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Thanks for forwarding this. I certainly agree with your take on this, 
> although I can see why the many IPC members of the PPSAI-PDP-WG would 
> not. As far as I know there are no laws prohibiting, or even 
> addressing the use of privacy/proxy services by any kind of registrant 
> (commercial or other). I certainly do not agree that ICANN should 
> start classifying registrants based on their intended use of a domain 
> name. I?m actually not sure how a privacy/proxy service provider can 
> do this at the time of registration. Is a registrant supposed to 
> indicate his/her/its intent of use of the domain name at the time of 
> registration? What if the intent changes after registration? Is this a 
> tactic to revoke privacy services from a domain name already using 
> one? And I see no reason why there should be any special consideration 
> for commercial registrants of any kind anyway (I mean in principle). 
> Local laws (as far as I know) require that businesses with a web 
> presence publish contact information on their websites, so as far as 
> local laws are concerned, it?s more of a web content issue than a 
> domain name registration issue.
>
> I find it a bit surprising, with the initial report looming in the 
> near future, that three of the original charter questions have still 
> not been adequately addressed. From your email, I?m guessing there 
> have been significant discussions, but why hasn?t the WG taken a 
> position after all this time? What are the consensus levels looking 
> like around the answers to those questions? What are the RrSG and 
> At-Large folks thinking on these questions?
>
> Also, when you say /*?we need to act fast if there is agreement in 
> NCSG to push back?*/, what exactly do you mean? Where does the NCSG or 
> NCSG PC fit into this at this time? This is still a WG discussion, 
> right? Soon, we will have the opportunity to comment on the initial 
> report, but is there something you are asking us to do before then?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy 
>> proxy services working group.  While this is very instructive to see 
>> how ICANN operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC is 
>> chairing, we need to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to push 
>> back.  We are on our 74th working group meeting apparently now and 
>> there is a push for closure as you can see below....they want the 100 
>> page report out for comment by May 4.  We have been demanding a 
>> longer comment period so we can reach out to users of privacy proxy 
>> services, suggestion is 60 days.   The issue of use of proxy services 
>> by those "conducting commercial activity" in the view of facebook and 
>> the IPC includes a charity asking for donations (even though the 
>> financial bit is through a  provider service) or an entity of 
>> individual serving ads and thereby getting micropayments.  This is a 
>> matter for national law in my view, and ICANN should not be dabbling 
>> in it.  It guts privacy.  I would remind everyone thinking about this 
>> for the first time that the argument is being made on the basis of a 
>> web service paradigm, but it would have to be implemented in a way 
>> that includes the stockpiling of names that are not being actively 
>> used, or are only used for email.
>>
>> Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my 
>> colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been 
>> fighting this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on the 
>> EWG fighting back Facebook on the same issue.
>> Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short 
>> turn around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no 
>> doubt has anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one written 
>> just in case:-) With respect to strategy.....if we leave this in we 
>> have a lovely headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy proxy 
>> services for endangered groups and human rights workers).
>> cheers Stephanie
>> PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big 
>> one....especially with no reply comments period.
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 1.3.3
>> Date: 	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04 +0900
>> From: 	Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> To: 	gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>> SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be asked 
>> on the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would not 
>> support the inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading questions 
>> without the opposing questions.  To do so would be to reflect a 
>> fundamental bias.  I would prefer to say something along the lines of 
>> the use of proxy services by commercial entities could be restricted 
>> by national law, where such law applies.
>> I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial 
>> activity.  It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such 
>> restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over 
>> domain name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
>> If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view 
>> leading) text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing 
>> statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am surprised 
>> to see announced at this late date.
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>> On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier 
>>> today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and 
>>> staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>>>
>>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, we 
>>> recognize there is considerable support for extending the public 
>>> comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days on which 
>>> we have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to this, but 
>>> with the caveat that this will have repercussions on the pace and 
>>> intensity of our work once public comments have been received. 
>>> Specifically, if the public comment deadline is extended until July 
>>> 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we will need to 
>>> plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and August, some of 
>>> which may need to be more than an hour in length, to review these 
>>> comments and move toward a Final Report. Otherwise, we jeopardize 
>>> the prospects for getting the Final Report in front of the GNSO 
>>> council no later than the Dublin ICANN meeting.  As was noted on the 
>>> call today, many additional steps need to take place even after this 
>>> WG issues its Final Report before any new accreditation system can 
>>> be implemented, so the time pressure imposed by the expiration of 
>>> the Interim Specification at the end of next year is already real.
>>>
>>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG 
>>> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or 
>>> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for public 
>>> comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by staff no 
>>> later than Thursday, April 30.
>>>
>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 
>>> 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call 
>>> earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We 
>>> agree that this section could benefit from some revision, but 
>>> believe it should take the form of greater concision, not additional 
>>> presentation of arguments for the divergent positions. Thus we 
>>> suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>     Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is
>>>     registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting
>>>     commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P services
>>>     , there was disagreement over whether domain names that are
>>>     actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or
>>>     exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using
>>>     P/P services. While most WG members did not believe such a
>>>     prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed
>>>     that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use
>>>     or continue using proxy or privacy services.
>>>
>>>     For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to
>>>     limit access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the
>>>     following text was proposed to clarify and define their
>>>     position: ?domains used for online financial transactions for
>>>     commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy
>>>     registrations.?
>>>
>>>     Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the
>>>     following questions:
>>>
>>>       * Should registrants of domain names associated with
>>>         commercial activities and which are used for online
>>>         financial transactions be prohibited from using, or
>>>         continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
>>>       * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of
>>>         ?commercial? or ?transactional? to define those domains for
>>>         which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? And if
>>>         so, what should the definition(s) be??
>>>       * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data
>>>         fields to be displayed as a result?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> _________________________
>>> Graeme Bunton
>>> Manager, Management Information Systems
>>> Manager, Public Policy
>>> Tucows Inc.
>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20150430/3cda98db/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Apr 29 18:55:41 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:55:41 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>

I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>
> In addition to:
>
> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>
> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would 
> like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing 
> Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>
> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, 
>> and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the 
>> next couple of days. So far we have:
>>
>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>> 2. Matthew Shears
>> 3. James Gannon
>>
>> In addition:
>>
>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to 
>> Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca 
>>> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message 
>>>> from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement 
>>>>> on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll 
>>>>> <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org 
>>>>> <mailto:klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/eee89368/attachment.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Wed Apr 29 19:04:40 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:04:40 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>
	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
	<5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642E13@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I support Stephanies Engagement.

wolfgang

 


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von Stephanie Perrin
Gesendet: Mi 29.04.2015 17:55
An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
 
I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>
> In addition to:
>
> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>
> I'm fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would 
> like to volunteer, but so far, I'm personally in favour of appointing 
> Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>
> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, 
>> and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the 
>> next couple of days. So far we have:
>>
>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>> 2. Matthew Shears
>> 3. James Gannon
>>
>> In addition:
>>
>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to 
>> Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca 
>>> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message 
>>>> from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement 
>>>>> on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll 
>>>>> <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org 
>>>>> <mailto:klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





From director-general  Wed Apr 29 20:43:29 2015
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:43:29 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <22189632.49131430329409941.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>

Wrong gender perhaps? Looking forward to the response on why you do not make it to the list.

Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2015 3:55:41 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds


I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list? 
Stephanie Perrin 


On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote: 



Hi, 


The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows: 


1. Klaus Stoll 
2. James Gannon 
3. Paul Rosenzweig 
4. Arthur Gwagwa 


In addition to: 


5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll 
6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon 


I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT. 


Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any. 


Thanks. 


Amr 


On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 




Hi, 


Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have: 


1. Klaus Stoll 
2. Matthew Shears 
3. James Gannon 


In addition: 


4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT. 


Thanks. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 




Thanks Sam. Noted. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco < lanfran at yorku.ca > wrote: 




All, 

I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus. 

Sam 

On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: 



Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list. 


Thanks again. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll < klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org > wrote: 



Hi, 

I am interested to be a member of the drafting team. 

Yours 

Klaus 




_______________________________________________ 
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 aelsadr  Wed Apr 29 21:46:14 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:46:14 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <22189632.49131430329409941.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
References: <22189632.49131430329409941.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
Message-ID: <1465026F-53D9-441F-AE9A-75313199DBE6@egyptig.org>

Hi Dorothy,

On Apr 29, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at AITI-KACE.COM.GH> wrote:

> Wrong gender perhaps?

I hope this is a joke.

Thanks.

Amr

> Looking forward to the response on why you do not make it to the list.
> 
> Dorothy K. Gordon
> Director-General
> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
> Mobile: 233 265005712
> Direct Line: 233 302 683579
> Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
> Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2015 3:55:41 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
> 
> 
> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list? 
> Stephanie Perrin 
> 
> 
> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> 
> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows: 
> 
> 
> 1. Klaus Stoll 
> 2. James Gannon 
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig 
> 4. Arthur Gwagwa 
> 
> 
> In addition to: 
> 
> 
> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll 
> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon 
> 
> 
> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT. 
> 
> 
> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any. 
> 
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> 
> Amr 
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> 
> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have: 
> 
> 
> 1. Klaus Stoll 
> 2. Matthew Shears 
> 3. James Gannon 
> 
> 
> In addition: 
> 
> 
> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT. 
> 
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> 
> Amr 
> 
> 
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Sam. Noted. 
> 
> 
> Amr 
> 
> 
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco < lanfran at yorku.ca > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All, 
> 
> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus. 
> 
> Sam 
> 
> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list. 
> 
> 
> Thanks again. 
> 
> 
> Amr 
> 
> 
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll < klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team. 
> 
> Yours 
> 
> Klaus 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Wed Apr 29 21:50:29 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:50:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
	<5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>

Hi Stephanie,

Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one on NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there aren?t any emails that aren?t making it into my inbox.

The updated list of volunteers is:

1. Klaus Stoll
2. James Gannon
3. Paul Rosenzweig
4. Arthur Gwawa
5. Stephanie Perrin

in addition to:

6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon

As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 4th, so we need to make our selection of two members and report back to Glen before then.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>> 
>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>> 2. James Gannon
>> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
>> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>> 
>> In addition to:
>> 
>> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
>> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>> 
>> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>> 
>> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have:
>>> 
>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>> 2. Matthew Shears
>>> 3. James Gannon
>>> 
>>> In addition:
>>> 
>>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sam
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20150429/b660ff88/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Apr 29 22:05:12 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:05:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <1465026F-53D9-441F-AE9A-75313199DBE6@egyptig.org>
References: <22189632.49131430329409941.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
	<1465026F-53D9-441F-AE9A-75313199DBE6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55412B68.705@acm.org>



On 29-Apr-15 14:46, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> > Wrong gender perhaps?
> I hope this is a joke.

this is never a joke.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/c4f7c9e9/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Apr 29 22:14:06 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:14:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report
In-Reply-To: <bd5ca3741e98430197137f56b6115b6a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <bd5ca3741e98430197137f56b6115b6a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <55412D7E.7090408@acm.org>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report
Date: 	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:54:07 +0000
From: 	Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
To: 	gnso-review-dt at icann.org <gnso-review-dt at icann.org>



Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

 

Attached is Westlake?s Draft Report, incorporating your feedback from
several weeks ago, along with additional work completed by their team. 
Westlake also submitted the attached Summary of the Working Party?s
comments and how they were resolved.  These documents will be available
for your convenience on the GNSO Review Wiki
<https://community.icann.org/x/XYI0Aw>.  At your request, this Draft
Report is intended for GNSO Review Working Party?s consideration,
_prior_ to being posted for Public Comment.  (As a reminder, included
below is the Review Timeline.)  It represents work in process, with the
goal to ensure that the Final Report (expected at the end of August) is
useful in fostering continuous improvement.

 

Westlake has added /Section 1: Report Summary/ which provides a useful
overview.  /Appendix 2: Survey quantitative summary results/ was 
distributed previously and can be found on the GNSO Review Wiki
<https://community.icann.org/x/voIHAw>.

 

*_Continuing Opportunities for Dialogue and Feedback_*

The ongoing dialogue and engagement with Westlake continues with two
working sessions in May to discuss the Draft Report. 

-   4 May @ 15:00-17:00 UTC

-   12 May @ 19:00-20:30 UTC (if needed)

-   Staff sent calendar invites for these two meetings some time ago ?
please let Charla know if you don?t have this information.

 

Westlake will issue a Draft Report for Public Comment on 1 June, after
considering your further comments and feedback over the course of the
next several weeks.  The entire community will have the opportunity to
provide comments during the Public Comment period (1 June ? 20 July). 
/Section 1: Report Summary/ will be translated into UN languages, plus
Portuguese.

 

Various other outreach and engagement activities are underway. Westlake
is preparing a brief video highlighting key points of the report, to
facilitate community engagement.  Staff is planning briefings and
additional opportunities for interaction with the GNSO and other
community members interested in providing feedback, during ICANN53.

 

Staff would welcome your ideas and suggestions of other ways to engage
the community during the Public Comment period. 

_ _

*_GNSO Review Timeline_*

_ _

cid:image001.png at 01D0826B.769D0D60

 

*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>

310 383-8995

 





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/58ec83c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 36527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/58ec83c1/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft v1 - delivery version for GNSO Review WP - April 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 4708887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/58ec83c1/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Full WP Comments.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 357990 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/58ec83c1/attachment-0003.pdf>


From director-general  Wed Apr 29 23:07:03 2015
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:07:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>

Thank you for taking immediate action.
best

Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
To: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2015 6:50:29 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds



Hi Stephanie, 


Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one on NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there aren?t any emails that aren?t making it into my inbox. 


The updated list of volunteers is: 


1. Klaus Stoll 
2. James Gannon 
3. Paul Rosenzweig 
4. Arthur Gwawa 
5. Stephanie Perrin 


in addition to: 


6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll 
7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon 


As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 4th, so we need to make our selection of two members and report back to Glen before then. 


Thanks. 


Amr 


On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > wrote: 



I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list? 
Stephanie Perrin 


On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote: 



Hi, 


The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows: 


1. Klaus Stoll 
2. James Gannon 
3. Paul Rosenzweig 
4. Arthur Gwagwa 


In addition to: 


5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll 
6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon 


I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT. 


Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any. 


Thanks. 


Amr 


On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 




Hi, 


Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have: 


1. Klaus Stoll 
2. Matthew Shears 
3. James Gannon 


In addition: 


4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT. 


Thanks. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote: 




Thanks Sam. Noted. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco < lanfran at yorku.ca > wrote: 




All, 

I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus. 

Sam 

On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: 



Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list. 


Thanks again. 


Amr 


On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll < klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org > wrote: 



Hi, 

I am interested to be a member of the drafting team. 

Yours 

Klaus 




_______________________________________________ 
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 


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



From egmorris1  Wed Apr 29 23:22:17 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:22:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>

Hello NCSG PC colleagues,

I'm sorry for my brevity but I'm currently in transit.

Time is short and we'd need an immediate response from everyone but I would propose that we endorse Kathy's well written public comment on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review (follows in this transmission). As Kathy has written, these issues are a historical concern of the NCSG and the positions Kathy has enunciated are a fundamental part of who we are.

Amr, I'm still not sure of the formal procedure for getting a PC endorsement of a public comment but if it is at all possible to reach an affirmative consensus I would propose that we try to do so.

Thanks,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
> Date: April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment
> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
> 
> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. We spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder Groups to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners with those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of all stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on the ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and Leslie Guanyuan as our Alternates.
> 
> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report does not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to put in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants receive good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding for the URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether legitimate ?fair use? of words in domain names are truly being protected.
> 
> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.  These are due shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group kept us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? so I circulate them to all who would like to sign on.
> 
> So far, no one has responded to this draft       report with any interest in freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I guess that?s our job :-)!
> 
> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
> 
> Best,
> 
> Kathy (Kleiman)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Comments Submitted by Members of the       Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use of specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
> 
> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to reflect the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these rules:  were existing rights protected, were existing fair use protections maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or expanded intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or authority to create)?
> 
> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
> 
> We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For example, when the final report         goes out to the Community with questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked for New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education and information in responding to URS claims. 
> 
> So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN Staff ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the final version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and concerns are heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 1.       In Section 3.2.2 Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:  The section raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may use, e.g., HASBRO.  The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? and the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected outside of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>  
> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically did not consider it fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and the Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? lettering offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text alone and in isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely what the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and accepted.  Domain names and URLs don?t have design elements. 
>  
> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
> 
>  
> 
> 2.       Section 3.3 Proof of Use is an       important feature of the TMCH; it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and Sunrise registration processes, it is important to request input from those who have observed these practices and wish to comment on whether the balance and intent to prevent individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use       requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such as one year?
>  
> 3.       Section 3.4 Matching Rules:  This is an important section as the rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would create a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it will be again and again in the future).  Similarly, the ___ registrations of GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the registration of the domain name GOOGLE.COM or the registration of GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office. 
>  
> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty of going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of the existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for additional input and possible changes.
>  
> 4.       Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications:  In the next version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to reflect a much broader question.  Should the goal have been only ?to reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or should it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive change in the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs and a new set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should know about and understand.  Did the TMCH devote even one second or one dollar to outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact of the Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer questions that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this new type of notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the Trademark Notice was meant to protect were not artificially ?chilled? from moving forward with the registration of a domain name if they had the rights to do so.
>  
> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked to be fairer and more balanced? 
>  
> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.   This has left noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and       individuals without the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect all legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms for future domain names, just as they have been protected for existing ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing Machinery and the Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for change in mathematics.
>  
> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>  
> 5.       Section 4 Sunrise Period:  We request that the questions in the next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters to .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first registration?   For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to individuals, noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc., should the Sunrise Period exist at all? 
>  
> Inquiry into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit for       existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be added and asked.  Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark owners?
>  
> 6.       Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods is an important section and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why registries may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players seeking to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in General Availability.
>  
> 7.       Section 4.5 Reserved Names. Reserved names policy is one that raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick all of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s rules barring closed generics?  This is an important inquiry for the next round.  
> 
>  
> 
> 8.       Section 5 Trademark Claims Service:  The Trademark Claims Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related reports include:
>  
> a)      Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
> b)      Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
> c)       Why are so many potential registrants not       registering domain names after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of the notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the phrasing or not reading       it in a language they speak?
> d)      **How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are protected and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well? 
>  
> 9.       Section 5.2, Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels: there is a lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented by ICANN.  In light of the complaints brought against it, and apologies issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking if this ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back completely?
>  
> 10.   Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a completely invalid offering. The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of the ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims Service would last.  Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing of their own marks and there are many private services and public tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or allowing such an expanded and even unlimited extension of the Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and small businesses and entrepreneurs?  What is the impact on those in developing countries?  What is the impact of those who don?t speak English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain Names)?  Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without authorization and should it be stopped?
>  
> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is allowed to write its own rules.
>  
> 11.   Section 6, Uniform Rapid Suspension:  we would like to see the next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be able to respond.
>  
> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than we expected given that half the URS claims receive a       response. Do Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>  
> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include: 
> A.      Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence of the URS?  
> B.      Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the UDRP and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the different standards of proof, and the much more expanded defenses?   Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ pages and Q & A sheets?
> C.      Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the URS?
> D.      Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
> E.       Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules? 
> F.       Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in the Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming from the IDNs?
> G.     How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS defenses and rights for registrants?
> H.      How can we improve       monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of the URS results?
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. A huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every type of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, fair use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic words, common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last names protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN Board?
> 
> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including the upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and comprehensively balanced inquiry.  We must remain fully cognizant that we are adopting these rules and seeking to protect the balanced rights of the whole of the Internet Community, which is now the world.   This is not just a world of commerce, it is a world of free speech, democratic development, and freedom of       association, rights that are impacted by restrictions on the use of words.
> 
>  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
> 
> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
> 
> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
> 
> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/bcf3e2ab/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments on New gTLD Program Rights Protection Mechanisms Draft Report for 4_30_2015 Submission (00784279xB3D1E).DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/bcf3e2ab/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/bcf3e2ab/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Wed Apr 29 23:27:20 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:27:20 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <A38F7EDC-7367-44C0-9321-20780F86675E@ipjustice.org>

Agree 100% and huge THANK YOU to Kathy for following this important issue and drafting these comments.  I hope we can get them endorsed and submitted forthwith.  Thank you.

Best,
Robin

On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Edward Morris wrote:

> Hello NCSG PC colleagues,
> 
> I'm sorry for my brevity but I'm currently in transit.
> 
> Time is short and we'd need an immediate response from everyone but I would propose that we endorse Kathy's well written public comment on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review (follows in this transmission). As Kathy has written, these issues are a historical concern of the NCSG and the positions Kathy has enunciated are a fundamental part of who we are.
> 
> Amr, I'm still not sure of the formal procedure for getting a PC endorsement of a public comment but if it is at all possible to reach an affirmative consensus I would propose that we try to do so.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ed Morris
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>> Date: April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment
>> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>> 
>> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. We spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder Groups to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners with those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of all stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on the ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and Leslie Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>> 
>> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report does not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to put in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants receive good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding for the URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether legitimate ?fair use? of words in domain names are truly being protected.
>> 
>> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.  These are due shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group kept us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? so I circulate them to all who would like to sign on.
>> 
>> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest in freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I guess that?s our job :-)!
>> 
>> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Kathy (Kleiman)
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>> 
>> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use of specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>> 
>> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to reflect the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these rules:  were existing rights protected, were existing fair use protections maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or expanded intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or authority to create)?
>> 
>> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>> 
>> We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For example, when the final report goes out to the Community with questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked for New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education and information in responding to URS claims. 
>> 
>> So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN Staff ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the final version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and concerns are heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks.
>> 
>> Specifically:
>> 
>> 1.       In Section 3.2.2 Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:  The section raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may use, e.g., HASBRO.  The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? and the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected outside of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>>  
>> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically did not consider it fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and the Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? lettering offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text alone and in isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely what the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and accepted.  Domain names and URLs don?t have design elements. 
>>  
>> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2.       Section 3.3 Proof of Use is an important feature of the TMCH; it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and Sunrise registration processes, it is important to request input from those who have observed these practices and wish to comment on whether the balance and intent to prevent individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such as one year?
>>  
>> 3.       Section 3.4 Matching Rules:  This is an important section as the rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would create a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it will be again and again in the future).  Similarly, the ___ registrations of GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the registration of the domain name GOOGLE.COM or the registration of GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office. 
>>  
>> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty of going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of the existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for additional input and possible changes.
>>  
>> 4.       Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications:  In the next version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to reflect a much broader question.  Should the goal have been only ?to reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or should it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive change in the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs and a new set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should know about and understand.  Did the TMCH devote even one second or one dollar to outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact of the Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer questions that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this new type of notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the Trademark Notice was meant to protect were not artificially ?chilled? from moving forward with the registration of a domain name if they had the rights to do so.
>>  
>> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked to be fairer and more balanced? 
>>  
>> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.   This has left noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect all legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms for future domain names, just as they have been protected for existing ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing Machinery and the Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for change in mathematics.
>>  
>> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>>  
>> 5.       Section 4 Sunrise Period:  We request that the questions in the next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters to .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first registration?   For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to individuals, noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc., should the Sunrise Period exist at all? 
>>  
>> Inquiry into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit for existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be added and asked.  Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark owners?
>>  
>> 6.       Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods is an important section and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why registries may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players seeking to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in General Availability.
>>  
>> 7.       Section 4.5 Reserved Names. Reserved names policy is one that raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick all of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s rules barring closed generics?  This is an important inquiry for the next round.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 8.       Section 5 Trademark Claims Service:  The Trademark Claims Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related reports include:
>>  
>> a)      Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>> b)      Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>> c)       Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain names after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of the notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the phrasing or not reading it in a language they speak?
>> d)      **How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are protected and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well? 
>>  
>> 9.       Section 5.2, Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels: there is a lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented by ICANN.  In light of the       complaints brought against it, and apologies issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking if this ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back completely?
>>  
>> 10.   Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a completely invalid offering. The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of the ICANN Board were       clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims Service would last.  Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing of their own marks and there are many private services and public tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or allowing such an expanded and even unlimited extension of the Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and small businesses and entrepreneurs?  What is the impact on those in developing countries?  What is the impact of those who don?t speak English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain Names)?  Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without authorization and should it be stopped?
>>  
>> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is allowed to write its own rules.
>>  
>> 11.   Section 6, Uniform Rapid Suspension:  we would like to see the next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be able to respond.
>>  
>> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than we expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>>  
>> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include: 
>> A.      Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence of the URS? 
>> B.      Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the UDRP and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the different standards of proof, and the much more expanded defenses?   Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ pages and Q & A sheets?
>> C.      Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the URS?
>> D.      Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>> E.       Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules? 
>> F.       Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in the Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming from the IDNs?
>> G.     How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS defenses and rights for registrants?
>> H.      How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of the URS results?
>> 
>> Conclusion:
>> 
>> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. A huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every type of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, fair use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic words, common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last names protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN Board?
>> 
>> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including the upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and comprehensively balanced inquiry.  We must remain fully cognizant that we are adopting these rules and seeking to protect the balanced rights of the whole of the Internet Community, which is now the world.   This is not just a world of commerce, it is a world of free speech, democratic development, and freedom of association, rights that are impacted by restrictions on the use of words.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>> 
>> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>> 
>> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>> 
>> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>> 
>> 
> <Comments on New gTLD Program Rights Protection Mechanisms Draft Report for 4_30_2015 Submission (00784279xB3D1E).DOCX>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150429/eb873669/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/eb873669/attachment-0001.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 30 00:00:34 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:00:34 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
	<5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55414672.70205@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks Amr, maybe the fault is at my end, as I am travelling and 
sometimes things don't get through....don't spend your precious time 
looking!
Kind regards,
Stephanie

On 2015-04-30 3:50, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one 
> on NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there 
> aren?t any emails that aren?t making it into my inbox.
>
> The updated list of volunteers is:
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwawa
> 5. Stephanie Perrin
>
> in addition to:
>
> 6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>
> As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 
> 4th, so we need to make our selection of two members and report back 
> to Glen before then.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>> 2. James Gannon
>>> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
>>> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>>>
>>> In addition to:
>>>
>>> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
>>> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>>>
>>> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would 
>>> like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of 
>>> appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>>>
>>> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right 
>>>> now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest 
>>>> over the next couple of days. So far we have:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>>> 2. Matthew Shears
>>>> 3. James Gannon
>>>>
>>>> In addition:
>>>>
>>>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to 
>>>> Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca 
>>>>> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message 
>>>>>> from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement 
>>>>>>> on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll 
>>>>>>> <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org 
>>>>>>> <mailto:klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20150430/e6c2e09d/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Apr 30 00:10:31 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:10:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Draft Rights
 Protection Mechanism Review paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <554148C7.9000909@acm.org>

Hi,

Good comments.

Thanks for doing them.

I suggest NCSG endorse them.

avri

On 29-Apr-15 15:37, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms
> Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New
> gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH),
> mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to
> register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>
> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. We
> spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder Groups
> to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners with
> those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of all
> stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on the
> ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross,
> Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and Leslie
> Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>
> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has
> lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report does
> not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to put
> in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants receive
> good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding for the
> URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether legitimate ?fair
> use? of words in domain names are truly being protected.
>
> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.  These are due
> shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group kept
> us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? *so I circulate them to all who
> would like to sign on. *
>
> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest in
> freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I guess
> that?s our job :-)!
>
> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>
> Best,
>
> Kathy (Kleiman)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>
> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection
> Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done
> to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use of
> specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the Trademark
> Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>
> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the
> report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to reflect
> the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these rules:  were
> existing rights protected, were existing fair use protections
> maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or expanded
> intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or authority to
> create)?
>
> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report
> expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in
> these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and
> registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and
> commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>
> /We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these
> issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For
> example, when the final report goes out to the Community with
> questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for
> trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked for
> New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education and
> information in responding to URS claims.  /
>
> /So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN Staff
> ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the final
> version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and concerns are
> heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks./
>
> _Specifically: _
>
> 1.       In Section 3.2.2 *Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:  *The
> section raises some good points that should be addressed more
> directly. The GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ?
> as in the specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols
> it may use, e.g., HASBRO.  The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace
> the registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and
> design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic
> elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? and
> the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected outside
> of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>
>  
>
> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically */did not/* consider it
> fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and the
> Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? lettering
> offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text alone and in
> isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely what the Trademark
> Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and accepted.  Domain names and
> URLs don?t have design elements. 
>
>  
>
> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have
> been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters
> and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the
> original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the
> GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
>
>  
>
> 2.       *Section 3.3* *Proof of Use* is an important feature of the
> TMCH; it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair
> advantage to certain new registrants over others. In addition to
> requesting feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse
> verification and Sunrise registration processes, it is important to
> request input from those who have observed these practices and wish to
> comment on whether the balance and intent to prevent
> individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots
> without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use
> requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such
> as one year?
>
>  
>
> 3.       *Section 3.4 Matching Rules*:  This is an important section
> as the rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only
> exact matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why
> that decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a
> firestorm of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is
> another person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this
> paper would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing
> trademark in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules,
> would create a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and
> entirely different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it
> will be again and again in the future).  Similarly, the ___
> registrations of GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the
> registration of the domain name GOOGLE.COM or the registration of
> GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office. 
>
>  
>
> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty of
> going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of the
> existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for
> additional input and possible changes.
>
>  
>
> 4.       *Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications*:  In the
> next version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to
> reflect a much broader question.  Should the goal have been only ?to
> reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services
> related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or should
> it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive change in
> the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs and a new
> set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should know about
> and understand.  Did the TMCH devote even one second or one dollar to
> outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact of the
> Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer questions
> that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this new type of
> notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the Trademark Notice
> was meant to protect were not artificially ?chilled? from moving
> forward with the registration of a domain name if they had the rights
> to do so.
>
> * *
>
> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants
> fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional
> information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked
> to be fairer and more balanced? 
>
>  
>
> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was
> provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.   This has left
> noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without
> the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect all
> legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms for
> future domain names, just as they have been protected for existing
> ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing Machinery and the
> Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines,
> Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for change in mathematics.
>
>  
>
> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and
> communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all
> and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>
>  
>
> 5.       *Section 4* *Sunrise Period*:  We request that the questions
> in the next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the
> sunrise period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside
> their categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD
> caters to .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first
> registration?   For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to
> individuals, noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc.,
> should the Sunrise Period exist at all? 
>
> * *
>
> Inquiry**into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit
> for existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant
> in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be
> added and asked.  Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be
> more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark owners?
>
>  
>
> 6.       *Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods* is an important
> section and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why
> registries may want to open registrations to those who are not
> trademark owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football
> players seeking to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the
> opening in General Availability.
>
>  
>
> 7.       Section 4.5 *Reserved Names.* Reserved names policy is one
> that raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future
> rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a
> gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry
> Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive
> activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick all
> of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s rules
> barring closed generics?  This is an important inquiry for the next
> round.  
>
>  
>
> 8.       *Section 5 Trademark Claims Service*:  The Trademark Claims
> Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and
> concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related
> reports include:
>
>  
>
> a)      Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>
> b)      Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>
> c)       Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain
> names after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually
> cybersquatters or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled?
> by language of the notice or the inability to understand the notice
> (either the phrasing or not reading it in a language they speak?
>
> d)      **How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer,
> fairer and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are
> protected and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections
> adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well? 
>
>  
>
> 9.       *Section 5.2,* *Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels*: there
> is a lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and
> implemented by ICANN.  In light of the complaints brought against it,
> and apologies issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be
> asking if this ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled
> back completely?
>
>  
>
> 10.   *Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a
> completely invalid offering. *The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of
> the ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims
> Service would last.  Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing
> of their own marks and there are many private services and public
> tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or
> allowing such an expanded and _even unlimited extension of the
> Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended
> consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future
> registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and
> small businesses and entrepreneurs?  What is the impact on those in
> developing countries?  What is the impact of those who don?t speak
> English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain
> Names)?  Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly
> subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without
> authorization and should it be stopped? _
>
>  
>
> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports
> be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is
> allowed to write its own rules. **
>
>  
>
> 11.   *Section 6,* *Uniform Rapid Suspension:  *we would like to see
> the next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial
> mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New
> gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be able
> to respond.
>
>  
>
> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than
> we expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do
> Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they
> understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>
>  
>
> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this
> report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of
> both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include: 
>
> A.      Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the
> existence of the URS? 
>
> B.      Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the
> UDRP and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response,
> the different standards of proof, and the much more expanded
> defenses?   Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ
> pages and Q & A sheets?
>
> C.      Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of
> the URS?
>
> D.      Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>
> E.       Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules? 
>
> F.       Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in
> the Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to
> responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming from
> the IDNs?
>
> G.     How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of
> Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS
> defenses and rights for registrants?
>
> H.      How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting
> of the URS results?
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. A
> huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every type
> of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative,
> regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights
> holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future
> rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, fair
> use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic words,
> common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last names
> protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and international
> treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully drafted by the
> IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN Board?
>
> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including the
> upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and comprehensively
> balanced inquiry.  We must remain fully cognizant that we are adopting
> these rules and seeking to protect the balanced rights of the whole of
> the Internet Community, which is now the world.   This is not just a
> world of commerce, it is a world of free speech, democratic
> development, and freedom of association, rights that are impacted by
> restrictions on the use of words.
>
>  
>
> Sincerely,
>
> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>
> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG
> Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>
> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>
> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>
> Penn Engineering Overseers? Meeting 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/0c1a5d08/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 30 00:19:18 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:19:18 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <A38F7EDC-7367-44C0-9321-20780F86675E@ipjustice.org>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
	<A38F7EDC-7367-44C0-9321-20780F86675E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <55414AD6.5060400@mail.utoronto.ca>

I have already signed, you two endorse, how many more do we need?
I am also sending out to my network as I see this as a fundamental 
issue, and thanks to Kathy for drafting.
Steph

On 2015-04-30 5:27, Robin Gross wrote:
> Agree 100% and huge THANK YOU to Kathy for following this important 
> issue and drafting these comments.  I hope we can get them endorsed 
> and submitted forthwith.  Thank you.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>> Hello NCSG PC colleagues,
>>
>> I'm sorry for my brevity but I'm currently in transit.
>>
>> Time is short and we'd need an immediate response from everyone but I 
>> would propose that we endorse Kathy's well written public comment on 
>> the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review (follows in this 
>> transmission). As Kathy has written, these issues are a historical 
>> concern of the NCSG and the positions Kathy has enunciated are a 
>> fundamental part of who we are.
>>
>> Amr, I'm still not sure of the formal procedure for getting a PC 
>> endorsement of a public comment but if it is at all possible to reach 
>> an affirmative consensus I would propose that we try to do so.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>> *Date:* April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> *Subject:* *Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review 
>>> paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment*
>>> *Reply-To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms 
>>> Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New 
>>> gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), 
>>> mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to 
>>> register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>>>
>>> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. 
>>> We spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder 
>>> Groups to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners 
>>> with those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of 
>>> all stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on 
>>> the ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, 
>>> Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and 
>>> Leslie Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>>>
>>> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has 
>>> lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report 
>>> does not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to 
>>> put in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants 
>>> receive good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding 
>>> for the URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether 
>>> legitimate ?fair use? of words in domain names are truly being 
>>> protected.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.These are due 
>>> shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group 
>>> kept us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? *so I circulate them to all 
>>> who would like to sign on. *
>>>
>>> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest 
>>> in freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I 
>>> guess that?s our job :-)!
>>>
>>> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kathy (Kleiman)
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection 
>>> Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done 
>>> to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use 
>>> of specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the 
>>> Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>>>
>>> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the 
>>> report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to 
>>> reflect the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these 
>>> rules:were existing rights protected, were existing fair use 
>>> protections maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or 
>>> expanded intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or 
>>> authority to create)?
>>>
>>> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report 
>>> expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in 
>>> these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and 
>>> registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and 
>>> commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>>>
>>> /We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these 
>>> issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For 
>>> example, when the final report goes out to the Community with 
>>> questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for 
>>> trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked 
>>> for New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education 
>>> and information in responding to URS claims./
>>>
>>> /So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN 
>>> Staff ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the 
>>> final version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and 
>>> concerns are heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks./
>>>
>>> _Specifically: _
>>>
>>> 1.In Section 3.2.2 *Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:*The section 
>>> raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The 
>>> GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the 
>>> specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may 
>>> use, e.g., HASBRO.The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the 
>>> registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and 
>>> design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic 
>>> elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? 
>>> and the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected 
>>> outside of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>>>
>>> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically */did not/* consider it 
>>> fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and 
>>> the Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? 
>>> lettering offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text 
>>> alone and in isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely 
>>> what the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and 
>>> accepted.Domain names and URLs don?t have design elements.
>>>
>>> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have 
>>> been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters 
>>> and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the 
>>> original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the 
>>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
>>>
>>> 2.*Section 3.3* *Proof of Use* is an important feature of the TMCH; 
>>> it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage 
>>> to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting 
>>> feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and 
>>> Sunrise registration processes, it is important to request input 
>>> from those who have observed these practices and wish to comment on 
>>> whether the balance and intent to prevent 
>>> individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots 
>>> without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use 
>>> requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such 
>>> as one year?
>>>
>>> 3.*Section 3.4 Matching Rules*: This is an important section as the 
>>> rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact 
>>> matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that 
>>> decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm 
>>> of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another 
>>> person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper 
>>> would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark 
>>> in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would 
>>> create a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely 
>>> different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it will be 
>>> again and again in the future).Similarly, the ___ registrations of 
>>> GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the registration 
>>> of the domain name GOOGLE.COM <http://GOOGLE.COM/> or the 
>>> registration of GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office.
>>>
>>> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty 
>>> of going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of 
>>> the existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for 
>>> additional input and possible changes.
>>>
>>> 4.*Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications*:In the next 
>>> version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to 
>>> reflect a much broader question.Should the goal have been only ?to 
>>> reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services 
>>> related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or 
>>> should it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive 
>>> change in the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs 
>>> and a new set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should 
>>> know about and understand.Did the TMCH devote even one second or one 
>>> dollar to outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact 
>>> of the Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer 
>>> questions that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this 
>>> new type of notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the 
>>> Trademark Notice was meant to protect were not artificially 
>>> ?chilled? from moving forward with the registration of a domain name 
>>> if they had the rights to do so.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants 
>>> fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional 
>>> information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked 
>>> to be fairer and more balanced?
>>>
>>> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was 
>>> provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.This has left 
>>> noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without 
>>> the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect 
>>> all legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms 
>>> for future domain names, just as they have been protected for 
>>> existing ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing 
>>> Machinery and the Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta 
>>> Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for 
>>> change in mathematics.
>>>
>>> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and 
>>> communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all 
>>> and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>>>
>>> 5.*Section 4* *Sunrise Period*:We request that the questions in the 
>>> next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise 
>>> period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their 
>>> categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters 
>>> to .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first 
>>> registration?For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to individuals, 
>>> noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc., should the 
>>> Sunrise Period exist at all?
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> Inquiry**into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit 
>>> for existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant 
>>> in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be 
>>> added and asked.Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be 
>>> more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark 
>>> owners?
>>>
>>> 6.*Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods* is an important section 
>>> and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why registries 
>>> may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark 
>>> owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players 
>>> seeking to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in 
>>> General Availability.
>>>
>>> 7.Section 4.5 *Reserved Names.* Reserved names policy is one that 
>>> raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future 
>>> rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a 
>>> gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry 
>>> Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive 
>>> activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick 
>>> all of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s 
>>> rules barring closed generics?This is an important inquiry for the 
>>> next round.
>>>
>>> 8.*Section 5 Trademark Claims Service*:The Trademark Claims 
>>> Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and 
>>> concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related 
>>> reports include:
>>>
>>> a)Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>>>
>>> b)Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>>>
>>> c)Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain names 
>>> after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters 
>>> or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of 
>>> the notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the 
>>> phrasing or not reading it in a language they speak?
>>>
>>> d)**How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer 
>>> and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are 
>>> protected and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections 
>>> adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well?
>>>
>>> 9.*Section 5.2,* *Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels*: there is a 
>>> lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented 
>>> by ICANN.In light of the complaints brought against it, and 
>>> apologies issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking 
>>> if this ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back 
>>> completely?
>>>
>>> 10.*Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a 
>>> completely invalid offering. *The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of 
>>> the ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims 
>>> Service would last.Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing 
>>> of their own marks and there are many private services and public 
>>> tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or 
>>> allowing such an expanded and _even unlimited extension of the 
>>> Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended 
>>> consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future 
>>> registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and 
>>> small businesses and entrepreneurs?What is the impact on those in 
>>> developing countries?What is the impact of those who don?t speak 
>>> English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain 
>>> Names)?Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly 
>>> subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without 
>>> authorization and should it be stopped? _
>>>
>>> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports 
>>> be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is 
>>> allowed to write its own rules. **
>>>
>>> 11.*Section 6,* *Uniform Rapid Suspension:*we would like to see the 
>>> next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial 
>>> mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New 
>>> gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be 
>>> able to respond.
>>>
>>> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than 
>>> we expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do 
>>> Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they 
>>> understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>>>
>>> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this 
>>> report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of 
>>> both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include:
>>>
>>> A.Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence of 
>>> the URS?
>>>
>>> B.Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the UDRP 
>>> and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the 
>>> different standards of proof, and the much more expanded 
>>> defenses?Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ 
>>> pages and Q & A sheets?
>>>
>>> C.Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the 
>>> URS?
>>>
>>> D.Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>>>
>>> E.Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules?
>>>
>>> F.Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in the 
>>> Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to 
>>> responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming 
>>> from the IDNs?
>>>
>>> G.How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of 
>>> Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS 
>>> defenses and rights for registrants?
>>>
>>> H.How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of 
>>> the URS results?
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>>
>>> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. 
>>> A huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every 
>>> type of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, 
>>> regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights 
>>> holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future 
>>> rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, 
>>> fair use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic 
>>> words, common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last 
>>> names protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and 
>>> international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully 
>>> drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN 
>>> Board?
>>>
>>> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including 
>>> the upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and 
>>> comprehensively balanced inquiry. We must remain fully cognizant 
>>> that we are adopting these rules and seeking to protect the balanced 
>>> rights of the whole of the Internet Community, which is now the 
>>> world. This is not just a world of commerce, it is a world of free 
>>> speech, democratic development, and freedom of association, rights 
>>> that are impacted by restrictions on the use of words.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>>>
>>> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG 
>>> Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>>>
>>> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>>>
>>> Penn Engineering Overseers? Meeting
>> <Comments on New gTLD Program Rights Protection Mechanisms Draft 
>> Report for 4_30_2015 Submission (00784279xB3D1E).DOCX> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/78339ef4/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Apr 30 03:03:16 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:03:16 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <55417144.3050603@yorku.ca>

Put me down as endorsing Kathy's comments.....and thanks Kathy!

Sam L.
>
>> *From:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>> *Date:* April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> *Subject:* *Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review 
>> paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment*
>> *Reply-To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms 
>> Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New 
>> gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), 
>> mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to 
>> register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>>
>> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. We 
>> spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder Groups 
>> to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners with 
>> those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of all 
>> stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on the 
>> ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, 
>> Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and Leslie 
>> Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>>
>> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has 
>> lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report 
>> does not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to 
>> put in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants 
>> receive good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding 
>> for the URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether legitimate 
>> ?fair use? of words in domain names are truly being protected.
>>
>> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.These are due 
>> shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group 
>> kept us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? *so I circulate them to all 
>> who would like to sign on. *
>>
>> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest 
>> in freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I 
>> guess that?s our job :-)!
>>
>> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kathy (Kleiman)
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection 
>> Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done 
>> to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use 
>> of specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the 
>> Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>>
>> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the 
>> report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to 
>> reflect the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these 
>> rules:were existing rights protected, were existing fair use 
>> protections maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or 
>> expanded intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or 
>> authority to create)?
>>
>> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report 
>> expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in 
>> these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and 
>> registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and 
>> commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>>
>> /We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these 
>> issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For 
>> example, when the final report goes out to the Community with 
>> questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for 
>> trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked for 
>> New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education and 
>> information in responding to URS claims./
>>
>> /So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN 
>> Staff ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the 
>> final version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and 
>> concerns are heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks./
>>
>> _Specifically: _
>>
>> 1.In Section 3.2.2 *Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:*The section 
>> raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The 
>> GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the 
>> specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may 
>> use, e.g., HASBRO.The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the 
>> registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and 
>> design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic 
>> elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? 
>> and the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected 
>> outside of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>>
>> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically */did not/* consider it 
>> fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and 
>> the Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? 
>> lettering offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text 
>> alone and in isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely what 
>> the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and accepted.Domain 
>> names and URLs don?t have design elements.
>>
>> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have 
>> been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters 
>> and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the 
>> original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the 
>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
>>
>> 2.*Section 3.3* *Proof of Use* is an important feature of the TMCH; 
>> it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage 
>> to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting 
>> feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and 
>> Sunrise registration processes, it is important to request input from 
>> those who have observed these practices and wish to comment on 
>> whether the balance and intent to prevent 
>> individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots 
>> without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use 
>> requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such 
>> as one year?
>>
>> 3.*Section 3.4 Matching Rules*: This is an important section as the 
>> rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact 
>> matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that 
>> decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm 
>> of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another 
>> person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper 
>> would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark 
>> in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would create 
>> a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely 
>> different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it will be 
>> again and again in the future).Similarly, the ___ registrations of 
>> GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the registration of 
>> the domain name GOOGLE.COM <http://GOOGLE.COM> or the registration of 
>> GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office.
>>
>> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty 
>> of going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of 
>> the existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for 
>> additional input and possible changes.
>>
>> 4.*Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications*:In the next 
>> version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to 
>> reflect a much broader question.Should the goal have been only ?to 
>> reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services 
>> related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or should 
>> it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive change in 
>> the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs and a new 
>> set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should know about 
>> and understand.Did the TMCH devote even one second or one dollar to 
>> outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact of the 
>> Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer questions 
>> that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this new type 
>> of notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the Trademark 
>> Notice was meant to protect were not artificially ?chilled? from 
>> moving forward with the registration of a domain name if they had the 
>> rights to do so.
>>
>> **
>>
>> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants 
>> fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional 
>> information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked 
>> to be fairer and more balanced?
>>
>> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was 
>> provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.This has left 
>> noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without 
>> the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect 
>> all legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms 
>> for future domain names, just as they have been protected for 
>> existing ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing 
>> Machinery and the Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta 
>> Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for 
>> change in mathematics.
>>
>> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and 
>> communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all 
>> and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>>
>> 5.*Section 4* *Sunrise Period*:We request that the questions in the 
>> next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise 
>> period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their 
>> categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters to 
>> .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first 
>> registration?For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to individuals, 
>> noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc., should the 
>> Sunrise Period exist at all?
>>
>> **
>>
>> Inquiry**into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit 
>> for existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant 
>> in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be 
>> added and asked.Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be 
>> more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark 
>> owners?
>>
>> 6.*Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods* is an important section 
>> and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why registries 
>> may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark owners, 
>> but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players seeking 
>> to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in General 
>> Availability.
>>
>> 7.Section 4.5 *Reserved Names.* Reserved names policy is one that 
>> raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future 
>> rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a 
>> gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry 
>> Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive 
>> activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick all 
>> of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s rules 
>> barring closed generics?This is an important inquiry for the next round.
>>
>> 8.*Section 5 Trademark Claims Service*:The Trademark Claims Services, 
>> as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and concerns. 
>> Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related reports 
>> include:
>>
>> a)Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>>
>> b)Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>>
>> c)Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain names 
>> after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters 
>> or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of 
>> the notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the 
>> phrasing or not reading it in a language they speak?
>>
>> d)**How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer and 
>> more accessible so that those protected by the notices are protected 
>> and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections adopted by the 
>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well?
>>
>> 9.*Section 5.2,* *Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels*: there is a 
>> lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented by 
>> ICANN.In light of the complaints brought against it, and apologies 
>> issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking if this 
>> ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back completely?
>>
>> 10.*Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a 
>> completely invalid offering. *The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of 
>> the ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims 
>> Service would last.Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing 
>> of their own marks and there are many private services and public 
>> tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or 
>> allowing such an expanded and _even unlimited extension of the 
>> Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended 
>> consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future 
>> registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and 
>> small businesses and entrepreneurs?What is the impact on those in 
>> developing countries?What is the impact of those who don?t speak 
>> English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain 
>> Names)?Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly 
>> subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without 
>> authorization and should it be stopped? _
>>
>> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports 
>> be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is 
>> allowed to write its own rules. **
>>
>> 11.*Section 6,* *Uniform Rapid Suspension:*we would like to see the 
>> next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial 
>> mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New 
>> gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be able 
>> to respond.
>>
>> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than 
>> we expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do 
>> Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they 
>> understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>>
>> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this 
>> report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of 
>> both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include:
>>
>> A.Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence of 
>> the URS?
>>
>> B.Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the UDRP 
>> and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the 
>> different standards of proof, and the much more expanded 
>> defenses?Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ 
>> pages and Q & A sheets?
>>
>> C.Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the URS?
>>
>> D.Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>>
>> E.Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules?
>>
>> F.Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in the 
>> Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to 
>> responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming 
>> from the IDNs?
>>
>> G.How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of 
>> Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS 
>> defenses and rights for registrants?
>>
>> H.How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of 
>> the URS results?
>>
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. 
>> A huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every 
>> type of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, 
>> regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights 
>> holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future 
>> rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, 
>> fair use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic 
>> words, common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last 
>> names protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and 
>> international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully 
>> drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN 
>> Board?
>>
>> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including 
>> the upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and comprehensively 
>> balanced inquiry. We must remain fully cognizant that we are adopting 
>> these rules and seeking to protect the balanced rights of the whole 
>> of the Internet Community, which is now the world. This is not just a 
>> world of commerce, it is a world of free speech, democratic 
>> development, and freedom of association, rights that are impacted by 
>> restrictions on the use of words.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>>
>> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG 
>> Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>>
>> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>>
>> Penn Engineering Overseers? Meeting
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150429/1d4a8313/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Apr 30 07:06:24 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:06:24 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

ok, lets check facts before jumping to such conclusions or having accusing
tone. I checked NCSG list and PC list archives I didn't find any email from
Stephanie stating that she is volunteering. Some empathy is important here,
everyone here got enough mail traffic to not see message (if there was)
quickly or respond in due time.
I also don't think anyone here dismiss gender issues and concerns,  so lets
not see such  malign intentions where there is none .

it solved now and Stephanie was added to the list.  we will have to decide
about the appointment in the coming days.
Thanks,

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-30 5:07 GMT+09:00 Dorothy K. Gordon <
director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh>:

> Thank you for taking immediate action.
> best
>
> Dorothy K. Gordon
> Director-General
> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
> Mobile: 233 265005712
> Direct Line: 233 302 683579
> Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
> Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> To: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2015 6:50:29 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
> recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>
>
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
>
> Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one on
> NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there aren?t any
> emails that aren?t making it into my inbox.
>
>
> The updated list of volunteers is:
>
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwawa
> 5. Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> in addition to:
>
>
> 6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>
>
> As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 4th,
> so we need to make our selection of two members and report back to Glen
> before then.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > wrote:
>
>
>
> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>
>
> In addition to:
>
>
> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>
>
> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like
> to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and
> James as NCSG members to the DT.
>
>
> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and
> need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple
> of days. So far we have:
>
>
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. Matthew Shears
> 3. James Gannon
>
>
> In addition:
>
>
> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as
> a member to the DT.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco < lanfran at yorku.ca > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from
> Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>
> Sam
>
> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the
> NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll < klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/5454483b/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 30 07:32:53 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:32:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section
 1.3.3
In-Reply-To: <55419017.80708@kathykleiman.com>
References: <55400C08.9060400@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55400FFB.9020905@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<4B99B2CF-3E1C-49D2-890C-BEAA6AF983F4@egyptig.org>
	<5540FE78.6080406@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55419017.80708@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <5541B075.60202@mail.utoronto.ca>

I sent it to the list, no response so far.  I will try to draft 
something up tonight.
Thanks for the support Kathy!
Cheers SP

On 2015-04-30 11:14, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> I agree with Stephanie - strongly. Why not ask for a single additional 
> question:
>     - is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's balliwick 
> and the proper province of national law?
> Then we can all answer yes.
>
> I think someone other than me should do this since I raised the first 
> round of big questions on the text. Stephanie?
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 4/29/2015 11:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I believe the proposed language is biased, and leading.  It prompts 
>> people to answer questions that favor the minority who were still 
>> pushing to ban use for commercial transactions.  Every IP law student 
>> in American is probably being told to send in their comments on these 
>> three questions. IF you are going to ask these three questions to 
>> clarify their position, then we need three questions on our side (it 
>> is late here, all i can think of right now is Do you believe in human 
>> rights?  If so, do you think ICANN should protect them or annihilate 
>> them?  (getting a wee bit grumpy with the amount of work coming our 
>> way.....:-) )
>> cheers steph
>> PS and yes we can leave it in and comment on it, but I think the 
>> questions in the initial report should be balanced.
>> On 2015-04-29 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>> Thanks for forwarding this. I certainly agree with your take on 
>>> this, although I can see why the many IPC members of the 
>>> PPSAI-PDP-WG would not. As far as I know there are no laws 
>>> prohibiting, or even addressing the use of privacy/proxy services by 
>>> any kind of registrant (commercial or other). I certainly do not 
>>> agree that ICANN should start classifying registrants based on their 
>>> intended use of a domain name. I?m actually not sure how a 
>>> privacy/proxy service provider can do this at the time of 
>>> registration. Is a registrant supposed to indicate his/her/its 
>>> intent of use of the domain name at the time of registration? What 
>>> if the intent changes after registration? Is this a tactic to revoke 
>>> privacy services from a domain name already using one? And I see no 
>>> reason why there should be any special consideration for commercial 
>>> registrants of any kind anyway (I mean in principle). Local laws (as 
>>> far as I know) require that businesses with a web presence publish 
>>> contact information on their websites, so as far as local laws are 
>>> concerned, it?s more of a web content issue than a domain name 
>>> registration issue.
>>>
>>> I find it a bit surprising, with the initial report looming in the 
>>> near future, that three of the original charter questions have still 
>>> not been adequately addressed. From your email, I?m guessing there 
>>> have been significant discussions, but why hasn?t the WG taken a 
>>> position after all this time? What are the consensus levels looking 
>>> like around the answers to those questions? What are the RrSG and 
>>> At-Large folks thinking on these questions?
>>>
>>> Also, when you say /*?we need to act fast if there is agreement in 
>>> NCSG to push back?*/, what exactly do you mean? Where does the NCSG 
>>> or NCSG PC fit into this at this time? This is still a WG 
>>> discussion, right? Soon, we will have the opportunity to comment on 
>>> the initial report, but is there something you are asking us to do 
>>> before then?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi folks, I am forwarding to you my latest missive to the privacy 
>>>> proxy services working group.  While this is very instructive to 
>>>> see how ICANN operates as an institution, particularly when the IPC 
>>>> is chairing, we need to act fast if there is agreement in NCSG to 
>>>> push back.  We are on our 74th working group meeting apparently now 
>>>> and there is a push for closure as you can see below....they want 
>>>> the 100 page report out for comment by May 4.  We have been 
>>>> demanding a longer comment period so we can reach out to users of 
>>>> privacy proxy services, suggestion is 60 days.   The issue of use 
>>>> of proxy services by those "conducting commercial activity" in the 
>>>> view of facebook and the IPC includes a charity asking for 
>>>> donations (even though the financial bit is through a  provider 
>>>> service) or an entity of individual serving ads and thereby getting 
>>>> micropayments.  This is a matter for national law in my view, and 
>>>> ICANN should not be dabbling in it.  It guts privacy.  I would 
>>>> remind everyone thinking about this for the first time that the 
>>>> argument is being made on the basis of a web service paradigm, but 
>>>> it would have to be implemented in a way that includes the 
>>>> stockpiling of names that are not being actively used, or are only 
>>>> used for email.
>>>>
>>>> Advice on pushback welcome, I have not even waited to consult my 
>>>> colleagues on the group as time is pressing; I know we have been 
>>>> fighting this for a year and a half and I spent a lot of time on 
>>>> the EWG fighting back Facebook on the same issue.
>>>> Reactions and strategy??  AS you can see I am protesting the short 
>>>> turn around time for dissenting statements too....although Kathy no 
>>>> doubt has anticipated a slimey move like this one and has one 
>>>> written just in case:-) With respect to strategy.....if we leave 
>>>> this in we have a lovely headline (ICANN moves to restrict privacy 
>>>> proxy services for endangered groups and human rights workers).
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>> PS yes I do know this is only a consultation, but it is the big 
>>>> one....especially with no reply comments period.
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: 	Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Comment Period and Section 
>>>> 1.3.3
>>>> Date: 	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:39:04 +0900
>>>> From: 	Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> To: 	gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SInce I think there is a distinct set of questions that can be 
>>>> asked on the other side, and that indeed have been asked, I would 
>>>> not support the inclusion of this set of (in my view) leading 
>>>> questions without the opposing questions.  To do so would be to 
>>>> reflect a fundamental bias.  I would prefer to say something along 
>>>> the lines of the use of proxy services by commercial entities could 
>>>> be restricted by national law, where such law applies.
>>>> I believe we had a lengthy discussion about defining commercial 
>>>> activity.  It seems to me it is not for ICANN to impose such 
>>>> restrictions on Internet activity through its limited remit over 
>>>> domain name registration, a point which we have made repeatedly.
>>>> If you are going to insist on the inclusion of this (in my view 
>>>> leading) text then we need a few more days to prepare an opposing 
>>>> statement.....April 30 is an artificial deadline which I am 
>>>> surprised to see announced at this late date.
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-04-29 6:17, Graeme Bunton wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to all WG members for a very productive call earlier 
>>>>> today(and to Steve for his chairing acumen).  The co-chairs and 
>>>>> staff met this afternoon to tie down two loose ends from the call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the deadline for public comments on the Initial Report, 
>>>>> we recognize there is considerable support for extending the 
>>>>> public comment period to 60 days instead of the standard 40 days 
>>>>> on which we have all been planning.   We are prepared to agree to 
>>>>> this, but with the caveat that this will have repercussions on the 
>>>>> pace and intensity of our work once public comments have been 
>>>>> received. Specifically, if the public comment deadline is extended 
>>>>> until July 3 (60 days after our publication date of May 4), we 
>>>>> will need to plan on at least weekly calls throughout July and 
>>>>> August, some of which may need to be more than an hour in length, 
>>>>> to review these comments and move toward a Final Report.  
>>>>> Otherwise, we jeopardize the prospects for getting the Final 
>>>>> Report in front of the GNSO council no later than the Dublin ICANN 
>>>>> meeting.  As was noted on the call today, many additional steps 
>>>>> need to take place even after this WG issues its Final Report 
>>>>> before any new accreditation system can be implemented, so the 
>>>>> time pressure imposed by the expiration of the Interim 
>>>>> Specification at the end of next year is already real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, as previously announced over the past few weeks, if any WG 
>>>>> members (or group of members) wish to submit a brief separate or 
>>>>> additional statement for inclusion in the package posted for 
>>>>> public comment next Monday, such statements need to be received by 
>>>>> staff no later than Thursday, April 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, the other loose end involves proposed revisions to section 
>>>>> 1.3.3 of the Initial Report, which were presented on the call 
>>>>> earlier today but which we did not have time to discuss fully.  We 
>>>>> agree that this section could benefit from some revision, but 
>>>>> believe it should take the form of greater concision, not 
>>>>> additional presentation of arguments for the divergent positions.  
>>>>> Thus we suggest that section 1.3.3 be revised to read as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>     Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name
>>>>>     is registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting
>>>>>     commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P
>>>>>     services , there was disagreement over whether domain names
>>>>>     that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the
>>>>>     sale or exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited
>>>>>     from using P/P services. While most WG members did not believe
>>>>>     such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members
>>>>>     believed that registrants of such domain names should not be
>>>>>     able to use or continue using proxy or privacy services.
>>>>>
>>>>>     For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to
>>>>>     limit access to P/P services to exclude commercial entities,
>>>>>     the following text was proposed to clarify and define their
>>>>>     position: ?domains used for online financial transactions for
>>>>>     commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy
>>>>>     registrations.?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Public comment is therefore specifically invited on the
>>>>>     following questions:
>>>>>
>>>>>       * Should registrants of domain names associated with
>>>>>         commercial activities and which are used for online
>>>>>         financial transactions be prohibited from using, or
>>>>>         continuing to use, privacy and proxy services?
>>>>>       * If so, will it be useful to adopt a definition of
>>>>>         ?commercial? or ?transactional? to define those domains
>>>>>         for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed?
>>>>>         And if so, what should the definition(s) be??
>>>>>       * Will it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS
>>>>>         data fields to be displayed as a result?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Graeme Bunton & Steve Metalitz
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> _________________________
>>>>> Graeme Bunton
>>>>> Manager, Management Information Systems
>>>>> Manager, Public Policy
>>>>> Tucows Inc.
>>>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20150430/a0272c41/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Apr 30 08:07:59 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:07:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>


hi,

BTW, no matter who we select, we also now have the core of an interested
NCSG support list for that effort.

I am _not_ volunteering for the upfront role, but will request addition
to the NCSG interest list on the topic if one is created

One issue we might want to keep in mind in picking our reps is that they
might also consider their ability/willingness to chair/v-chair the group
because as we see, they often become the chair of the WG.

avri



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/fb11826a/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 30 08:14:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5541BA2B.7060300@mail.utoronto.ca>

Yes and it is worthwhile remembering that although we are limited to 2 
for this group, the working group will accept more of us.  I would be 
happy to join that WG as well.
cheers Stephanie

On 2015-04-30 14:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> BTW, no matter who we select, we also now have the core of an 
> interested NCSG support list for that effort.
>
> I am _not_ volunteering for the upfront role, but will request 
> addition to the NCSG interest list on the topic if one is created
>
> One issue we might want to keep in mind in picking our reps is that 
> they might also consider their ability/willingness to chair/v-chair 
> the group because as we see, they often become the chair of the WG.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/2d8062f2/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Apr 30 08:29:16 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:29:16 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmsf8XOzmWdfyqkjR5OjoV20OKOQuqGx+jwfOSBtD1RqA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

thanks for this. yes we should continue with the practice to have an ad-hoc
mailing list so those interested and/or involved in the working group can
discuss and then back later to the main NCSG list. in such topic list, they
can coordinate, work together and support each other.

it is also good to remind those appointed as representatives should send
updates and trying to gather opinions from NCSG members

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-30 14:07 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> hi,
>
> BTW, no matter who we select, we also now have the core of an interested
> NCSG support list for that effort.
>
> I am *not* volunteering for the upfront role, but will request addition
> to the NCSG interest list on the topic if one is created
>
> One issue we might want to keep in mind in picking our reps is that they
> might also consider their ability/willingness to chair/v-chair the group
> because as we see, they often become the chair of the WG.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>   [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/37edce01/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Apr 30 08:44:28 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:44:28 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmsf8XOzmWdfyqkjR5OjoV20OKOQuqGx+jwfOSBtD1RqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmsf8XOzmWdfyqkjR5OjoV20OKOQuqGx+jwfOSBtD1RqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5541C13C.6010703@acm.org>

hi,


On 30-Apr-15 01:29, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> thanks for this. yes we should continue with the practice to have an
> ad-hoc mailing list so those interested and/or involved in the working
> group can discuss and then back later to the main NCSG list. in such
> topic list, they can coordinate, work together and support each other.
>
> it is also good to remind those appointed as representatives should
> send updates and trying to gather opinions from NCSG members
>

And do webinars!!!!

cheers,

avri

> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-04-30 14:07 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>
>     hi,
>
>     BTW, no matter who we select, we also now have the core of an
>     interested NCSG support list for that effort.
>
>     I am _not_ volunteering for the upfront role, but will request
>     addition to the NCSG interest list on the topic if one is created
>
>     One issue we might want to keep in mind in picking our reps is
>     that they might also consider their ability/willingness to
>     chair/v-chair the group because as we see, they often become the
>     chair of the WG.
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/25b75cce/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Apr 30 11:17:56 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:17:56 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThktxWcq21Ro4rwdH9MqDm0fCVQ5xHDi20NBcC3PRDD0kg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

the deadline to submit is 1st May 23:59UTC, I would give more time to let
the rest of PC members to express their support till 30th April 20:00UTC (I
used the timestamp for the email sent by Kathy). after that deadline, we
can call the statement endorsed by NCSG PC.

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-30 5:22 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hello NCSG PC colleagues,
>
> I'm sorry for my brevity but I'm currently in transit.
>
> Time is short and we'd need an immediate response from everyone but I
> would propose that we endorse Kathy's well written public comment on the
> Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review (follows in this transmission). As
> Kathy has written, these issues are a historical concern of the NCSG and
> the positions Kathy has enunciated are a fundamental part of who we are.
>
> Amr, I'm still not sure of the formal procedure for getting a PC
> endorsement of a public comment but if it is at all possible to reach an
> affirmative consensus I would propose that we try to do so.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
> *Date:* April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* *Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review
> paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment*
> *Reply-To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>
> Dear All,
>
> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms Review?
> to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New gTLD Program
> work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), mandatory Sunrise
> Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to register first, Uniform
> Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>
> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. We
> spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder Groups to
> try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners with those of
> new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of all stripes and the
> registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on the ?STI? (?Special
> Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and Leslie Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>
> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has lost
> its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report does not
> mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to put in; it does
> not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants receive good education
> about the new domain name dispute proceeding for the URS and its defenses
> (the answer is No) or whether legitimate ?fair use? of words in domain
> names are truly being protected.
>
> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.  These are due
> shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group kept us
> busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? *so I circulate them to all who would like
> to sign on. *
>
> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest in
> freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I guess
> that?s our job :-)!
>
> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>
> Best,
>
> Kathy (Kleiman)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>
> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection Mechanisms
> Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done to compile and
> analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use of specially-created
> mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark
> Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>
> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the
> report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to reflect the
> whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these rules:  were
> existing rights protected, were existing fair use protections maintained
> and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or expanded intellectual property
> rights (which ICANN has no power or authority to create)?
>
> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report expand
> its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in these mechanisms
> worked for all parties: both rights holders and registrants. Did these
> programs reflect the full range of goals and commitments for all parties
> that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>
> *We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these issues of
> balance and fairness raised in the final report. For example, when the
> final report goes out to the Community with questions of whether the URS
> (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for trademark owners, we also should be
> asking whether the URS worked for New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles
> they faced to education and information in responding to URS claims.  *
>
> *So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN Staff ?
> and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the final version
> of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and concerns are heard in the
> feedback that ICANN seeks.*
>
> *Specifically: *
>
> 1.       In Section 3.2.2 *Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:  *The
> section raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The
> GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the specific
> text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may use, e.g.,
> HASBRO.  The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the registration of
> ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and design features in which
> the font, the colors and the artistic elements are all part of the features
> protected by the trademark ? and the individual letters and words are
> expressly NOT protected outside of the design packaging in which they are
> presented.
>
>
>
> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically *did not* consider it fair to
> provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and the Trademark
> Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? lettering offering
> ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text alone and in isolation of
> its design ? and yet that is precisely what the Trademark Clearinghouse
> (TMCH) has gone ahead and accepted.  Domain names and URLs don?t have
> design elements.
>
>
>
> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have been
> accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters and words
> that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the original intent
> of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN
> Board?
>
>
>
> 2.       *Section 3.3* *Proof of Use* is an important feature of the
> TMCH; it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage
> to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting feedback
> from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and Sunrise
> registration processes, it is important to request input from those who
> have observed these practices and wish to comment on whether the balance
> and intent to prevent individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing
> Sunrise spots without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the
> use requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such as
> one year?
>
>
>
> 3.       *Section 3.4 Matching Rules*:  This is an important section as
> the rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact
> matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that
> decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm of
> trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another person word.
> Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper would be key to
> illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark in ENOM (an
> ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would create a bar on the
> domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely different word (and one
> itself also trademarked now and it will be again and again in the future).
> Similarly, the ___ registrations of GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did
> not prevent the registration of the domain name GOOGLE.COM or the
> registration of GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office.
>
>
>
> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty of
> going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of the
> existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for additional
> input and possible changes.
>
>
>
> 4.       *Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications*:  In the
> next version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to
> reflect a much broader question.  Should the goal have been only ?to
> reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services related to
> the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or should it have been to
> inform the worldwide community of a massive change in the rules of
> registration of domain names in the New gTLDs and a new set of protections
> and notices that ALL registrants should know about and understand.  Did
> the TMCH devote even one second or one dollar to outreach, webinars and Q&A
> session to explain the impact of the Trademark [Claims] Notice to those
> receiving it, to answer questions that may arise from ambiguities or the
> publication of this new type of notice, or to ensure that those registrants
> who the Trademark Notice was meant to protect were not artificially
> ?chilled? from moving forward with the registration of a domain name if
> they had the rights to do so.
>
>
>
> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants fail
> to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional information
> about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked to be fairer and
> more balanced?
>
>
>
> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was provided
> to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.   This has left
> noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without the
> guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect all
> legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms for future
> domain names, just as they have been protected for existing ones (see e.g.,
> ACM as the Association for Computing Machinery and the Academy of Country
> Music, and DELTA as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and
> Delta the symbol for change in mathematics.
>
>
>
> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and
> communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all and
> for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>
>
>
> 5.       *Section 4* *Sunrise Period*:  We request that the questions in
> the next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise period
> gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their categories of
> goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters to .PIZZA should Delta
> Airlines really have a right of first registration?   For New gTLDs and
> future gTLDs catering to individuals, noncommercial organizations,
> religious groups, etc., should the Sunrise Period exist at all?
>
>
>
> Inquiry into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit for
> existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant in a
> .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be added and
> asked.  Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be more
> narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark owners?
>
>
>
> 6.       *Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods* is an important
> section and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why
> registries may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark
> owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players seeking
> to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in General
> Availability.
>
>
>
> 7.       Section 4.5 *Reserved Names.* Reserved names policy is one that
> raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future rounds. The
> idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a gTLD and releasing
> them to any ?person or entity at Registry Operator?s discretion? may and
> has led to gaming and anticompetitive activity. Can these Reserved Name
> policies be used to cherry-pick all of the best names by one industry
> competitor and bypass ICANN?s rules barring closed generics?  This is an
> important inquiry for the next round.
>
>
>
> 8.       *Section 5 Trademark Claims Service*:  The Trademark Claims
> Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and
> concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related
> reports include:
>
>
>
> a)      Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>
> b)      Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>
> c)       Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain
> names after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters
> or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of the
> notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the phrasing or
> not reading it in a language they speak?
>
> d)      **How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer
> and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are protected
> and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections adopted by the GNSO
> Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well?
>
>
>
> 9.       *Section 5.2,* *Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels*: there is
> a lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented by
> ICANN.  In light of the complaints brought against it, and apologies
> issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking if this ?50+?
> policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back completely?
>
>
>
> 10.   *Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a
> completely invalid offering. *The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of the
> ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims Service
> would last.  Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing of their
> own marks and there are many private services and public tools they can
> use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or allowing such an expanded
> and *even unlimited extension of the Trademark Claims Service and what
> are the intended and unintended consequences to the most vulnerable of our
> potential future registrants: including noncommercial organizations,
> individuals and small businesses and entrepreneurs?  What is the impact on
> those in developing countries?  What is the impact of those who don?t speak
> English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain
> Names)?  Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly
> subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without authorization
> and should it be stopped? *
>
>
>
> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports be
> expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is allowed to
> write its own rules.
>
>
>
> 11.   *Section 6,* *Uniform Rapid Suspension:  *we would like to see the
> next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial mechanism
> -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New gTLDs ? and many
> were worried about whether registrants would be able to respond.
>
>
>
> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than we
> expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do Registrants
> have the information they need to respond? Do they understand the special
> defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>
>
>
> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this
> report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of both
> sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include:
>
> A.      Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence
> of the URS?
>
> B.      Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the
> UDRP and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the
> different standards of proof, and the much more expanded defenses?   Where
> are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ pages and Q & A sheets?
>
> C.      Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the
> URS?
>
> D.      Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>
> E.       Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules?
>
> F.       Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in
> the Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to responses
> by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming from the IDNs?
>
> G.     How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of
> Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS defenses and
> rights for registrants?
>
> H.      How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of
> the URS results?
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. A
> huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every type of
> intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, regulatory,
> etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights holders protected,
> but also is the public protected, are all future rights holders protected,
> are free speech, freedom of expression, fair use and the rights of all to
> use dictionary words, generic words, common acronyms and phrases as well as
> their first and last names protected to the fullest extent of national
> laws, and international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and
> carefully drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and
> ICANN Board?
>
> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including the
> upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and comprehensively balanced
> inquiry.  We must remain fully cognizant that we are adopting these rules
> and seeking to protect the balanced rights of the whole of the Internet
> Community, which is now the world.   This is not just a world of
> commerce, it is a world of free speech, democratic development, and freedom
> of association, rights that are impacted by restrictions on the use of
> words.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>
> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG
> Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>
> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>
> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/3470d187/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Thu Apr 30 10:26:40 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:26:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5541BA2B.7060300@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>
	<5541BA2B.7060300@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5541D930.7010703@cdt.org>

Likewise.

On 4/30/2015 6:14 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Yes and it is worthwhile remembering that although we are limited to 2 
> for this group, the working group will accept more of us.  I would be 
> happy to join that WG as well.
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2015-04-30 14:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> BTW, no matter who we select, we also now have the core of an 
>> interested NCSG support list for that effort.
>>
>> I am _not_ volunteering for the upfront role, but will request 
>> addition to the NCSG interest list on the topic if one is created
>>
>> One issue we might want to keep in mind in picking our reps is that 
>> they might also consider their ability/willingness to chair/v-chair 
>> the group because as we see, they often become the chair of the WG.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/922f7294/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Apr 30 13:52:46 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:52:46 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
	<5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <E9D68FAC-BB15-4787-AF33-B711CD385E4B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Another updated list of volunteers for the drafting team:

1. Klaus Stoll
2. James Gannon
3. Paul Rosenzweig
4. Arthur Gwawa
5. Stephanie Perrin
6. Ol?vi? Kouami
7. Sonigitu Ekpe

in addition to:

8. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
9. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one on NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there aren?t any emails that aren?t making it into my inbox.
> 
> The updated list of volunteers is:
> 
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwawa
> 5. Stephanie Perrin
> 
> in addition to:
> 
> 6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
> 
> As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 4th, so we need to make our selection of two members and report back to Glen before then.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>>> 
>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>> 2. James Gannon
>>> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
>>> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>>> 
>>> In addition to:
>>> 
>>> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
>>> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>>> 
>>> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>>> 
>>> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>>> 2. Matthew Shears
>>>> 3. James Gannon
>>>> 
>>>> In addition:
>>>> 
>>>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/6707bbd1/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Apr 30 14:07:25 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:07:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>
	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <F1EA6E95-B485-465A-B497-40AFB646781F@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I also endorse this statement drafted by Kathy.

On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:22 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

[SNIP]

> Amr, I'm still not sure of the formal procedure for getting a PC endorsement of a public comment but if it is at all possible to reach an affirmative consensus I would propose that we try to do so.

In NCSG endorsement of policy statements, we generally use rough consensus of the NCSG-PC members. It?s looking pretty good so far.

On another note, since nobody?s responded to my request of an Alternate Chair to the PC being appointed, I?ve asked Rafik to take over the duties of the PC Chair over the next couple of weeks. He?ll be handling all consensus calls and NCSG submissions.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/4f79217c/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Apr 30 16:15:35 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:15:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5541D930.7010703@cdt.org>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>	<5541BA2B.7060300@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<5541D930.7010703@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <55422AF7.10700@yorku.ca>

I would like to underscore Stephanie's point that this is the 
development of the Charter and that the WG composition is a subsequent 
issue. I would like to suggest that the WG for this will be an 
interesting test bed for constituency consensus dynamics around an issue 
where constituency self-interest could take second place to ICANN "good 
works" initiatives.

Some have already suggested that the funds should just be refunded to 
various applicants (a broader vision than in the private auctions).

I personally would/will push for a broader mission and vision for the 
use of the new gTLD auction proceeds as an ncsg position.

Sam
> /On 4/30/2015 6:14 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote://
> /
>> /Yes and it is worthwhile remembering that although we are limited to 
>> 2 for this group, the working group will accept more of us.  I would 
>> be happy to join that WG as well. //
>> //cheers Stephanie//
>> / 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/33ce3527/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 30 16:30:53 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:30:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
 recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <55422AF7.10700@yorku.ca>
References: <A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>	<20031168.49191430338023284.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>	<CAH5sThkcMewA870vT+VoHFONBy92hF9Xk+7h-eSTV=tBrqgdWg@mail.gmail.com>	<5541B8AF.7090001@acm.org>	<5541BA2B.7060300@mail.utoronto.ca>	<5541D930.7010703@cdt.org>
	<55422AF7.10700@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <55422E8D.5050808@mail.utoronto.ca>

Me too!  Now that we have the money in ICANN's hot little hands lets 
think about the public interest.
Stephanie

On 2015-04-30 22:15, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I would like to underscore Stephanie's point that this is the 
> development of the Charter and that the WG composition is a subsequent 
> issue. I would like to suggest that the WG for this will be an 
> interesting test bed for constituency consensus dynamics around an 
> issue where constituency self-interest could take second place to 
> ICANN "good works" initiatives.
>
> Some have already suggested that the funds should just be refunded to 
> various applicants (a broader vision than in the private auctions).
>
> I personally would/will push for a broader mission and vision for the 
> use of the new gTLD auction proceeds as an ncsg position.
>
> Sam
>> /On 4/30/2015 6:14 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote://
>> /
>>> /Yes and it is worthwhile remembering that although we are limited 
>>> to 2 for this group, the working group will accept more of us.  I 
>>> would be happy to join that WG as well. //
>>> //cheers Stephanie//
>>> / 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/7c8961a6/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Apr 30 18:12:09 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:12:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointement to working group to develop
	recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <E9D68FAC-BB15-4787-AF33-B711CD385E4B@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThk7w7M5QTdi1e=4TFXUtneLPPpLmr9HSj-u+AOsLeMuwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0774821-B5D0-4074-8664-3AA0B7EB48DD@egyptig.org>
	<553E3393.3050301@gkpfoundation.org>
	<DABE749F-5CB3-4DE2-9DEC-207B77783529@egyptig.org>
	<553E4DC3.60407@yorku.ca>
	<7B6C09D3-B81E-461E-880C-0199C8C759A2@egyptig.org>
	<8082B809-E184-4472-8AB1-71674722406D@egyptig.org>
	<7D538A3D-B935-454B-B27D-7232119D12BC@egyptig.org>
	<5540FEFD.9050105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<A1BECF55-D066-4881-A107-F5106B584376@egyptig.org>
	<E9D68FAC-BB15-4787-AF33-B711CD385E4B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <8FE7C5E9-373A-45DF-A037-2FA8F519D2C3@gmail.com>

It might be interesting to have more candidates from the global South?.?

Bill

> On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Another updated list of volunteers for the drafting team:
> 
> 1. Klaus Stoll
> 2. James Gannon
> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
> 4. Arthur Gwawa
> 5. Stephanie Perrin
> 6. Ol?vi? Kouami
> 7. Sonigitu Ekpe
> 
> in addition to:
> 
> 8. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
> 9. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Stephanie,
>> 
>> Apologies. I hadn?t noticed you volunteering on this thread or the one on NCSG-DISCUSS. I?ll check the archives to make sure that there aren?t any emails that aren?t making it into my inbox.
>> 
>> The updated list of volunteers is:
>> 
>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>> 2. James Gannon
>> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
>> 4. Arthur Gwawa
>> 5. Stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> in addition to:
>> 
>> 6. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
>> 7. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>> 
>> As previously mentioned, the DT is scheduled to start its work on May 4th, so we need to make our selection of two members and report back to Glen before then.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I keep volunteering and I dont seem to make it to the list?
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> 
>>> On 2015-04-29 19:27, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> The updated list of volunteers for the drafting team is as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>>> 2. James Gannon
>>>> 3. Paul Rosenzweig
>>>> 4. Arthur Gwagwa
>>>> 
>>>> In addition to:
>>>> 
>>>> 5. Sam Lanfranco who deferred to Klaus Stoll
>>>> 6. Matthew Shears who deferred to James Gannon
>>>> 
>>>> I?m fine waiting for another day or two to see if anyone else would like to volunteer, but so far, I?m personally in favour of appointing Klaus and James as NCSG members to the DT.
>>>> 
>>>> Would appreciate hearing thoughts from others if anyone has any.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Following up on this, we have three volunteers to consider right now, and need to pick two of them. More might indicate interest over the next couple of days. So far we have:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Klaus Stoll
>>>>> 2. Matthew Shears
>>>>> 3. James Gannon
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Sam Lanfranco also indicated interest, but wished to defer to Klaus as a member to the DT.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Sam. Noted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I responded to Amr's query before scrolling down to this message from Klaus. I would happily defer to Klaus.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 27/04/2015 9:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks Klaus. We should probably note this with the announcement on the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org <mailto:klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am interested to be a member of the drafting team.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150430/8e8cf16b/attachment-0001.html>


From klaus.stoll  Thu Apr 30 21:46:23 2015
From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:46:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Endorsement Request
In-Reply-To: <55417144.3050603@yorku.ca>
References: <55413307.8060607@kathykleiman.com>	<E1F40C20-ED44-40F7-9C30-73906184FDDB@toast.net>
	<55417144.3050603@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <5542787F.6020601@gkpfoundation.org>

Same here

Klaus

On 4/29/2015 8:03 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Put me down as endorsing Kathy's comments.....and thanks Kathy!
>
> Sam L.
>>
>>> *From:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>> *Date:* April 29, 2015 at 8:37:43 PM GMT+1
>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> *Subject:* *Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review 
>>> paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment*
>>> *Reply-To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> ICANN has published a draft of its ?Rights Protection Mechanisms 
>>> Review? to ask whether the ?rights protection mechanisms? of the New 
>>> gTLD Program work. These include the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), 
>>> mandatory Sunrise Period in all gTLD to allow trademark owners to 
>>> register first, Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process, etc.
>>>
>>> The young NCSG played a special role in this process in 2009-2010. 
>>> We spent 7 weeks in tight negotiations with the other Stakeholder 
>>> Groups to try to balance the rights of intellectual property owners 
>>> with those of new/small businesses, noncommercial entities, users of 
>>> all stripes and the registry/registrar communities. The NCSG team on 
>>> the ?STI? (?Special Trademark Issues? Working Group was Robin Gross, 
>>> Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy Seltzer and me with Mary Wong and 
>>> Leslie Guanyuan as our Alternates.
>>>
>>> Now as this all comes up for review again, I think ICANN Staff has 
>>> lost its way. This Draft Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) report 
>>> does not mention anything about the fairness and balance we tried to 
>>> put in; it does not ask whether abuse about whether Registrants 
>>> receive good education about the new domain name dispute proceeding 
>>> for the URS and its defenses (the answer is No) or whether 
>>> legitimate ?fair use? of words in domain names are truly being 
>>> protected.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, I share a set of comments I have drafted.These are due 
>>> shortly (sorry, ICANN?s Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group 
>>> kept us busy!) ? tomorrow (Thursday) ? *so I circulate them to all 
>>> who would like to sign on. *
>>>
>>> So far, no one has responded to this draft report with any interest 
>>> in freedom of expression, fair use or the rights of Registrants. I 
>>> guess that?s our job :-)!
>>>
>>> Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kathy (Kleiman)
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Comments Submitted by Members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> Thank you for the publication of the DRAFT Rights Protection 
>>> Mechanisms Review paper. Clearly an enormous amount of work was done 
>>> to compile and analyze quantitative and qualitative data on the use 
>>> of specially-created mechanisms in the New gTLDs, such as the 
>>> Trademark Clearinghouse, Trademark Claims and Uniform Rapid Suspension.
>>>
>>> It is very important, however, that the questions being asked in the 
>>> report, and all future reports on this subject, be expanded to 
>>> reflect the whole of the GNSO and ICANN?s goals in passing these 
>>> rules:were existing rights protected, were existing fair use 
>>> protections maintained and did ICANN avoid the creation of new or 
>>> expanded intellectual property rights (which ICANN has no power or 
>>> authority to create)?
>>>
>>> With the details as set out below, we urge that the final report 
>>> expand its inquiry to see if the balance and fairness included in 
>>> these mechanisms worked for all parties: both rights holders and 
>>> registrants. Did these programs reflect the full range of goals and 
>>> commitments for all parties that ICANN set out in their adoption?
>>>
>>> /We respectfully request that we would like to see more of these 
>>> issues of balance and fairness raised in the final report. For 
>>> example, when the final report goes out to the Community with 
>>> questions of whether the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) worked for 
>>> trademark owners, we also should be asking whether the URS worked 
>>> for New gTLD Registrants and what obstacles they faced to education 
>>> and information in responding to URS claims./
>>>
>>> /So the comments below both respond to questions raised by ICANN 
>>> Staff ? and new ones that we would like ICANN Staff to raise in the 
>>> final version of this RPM Review to ensure that all sides and 
>>> concerns are heard in the feedback that ICANN seeks./
>>>
>>> _Specifically: _
>>>
>>> 1.In Section 3.2.2 *Trademark Clearinghouse Word Marks:*The section 
>>> raises some good points that should be addressed more directly. The 
>>> GNSO adopted rules for the protection of ?word marks? ? as in the 
>>> specific text of a mark and the letters, numbers and symbols it may 
>>> use, e.g., HASBRO.The GNSO rules specifically did not embrace the 
>>> registration of ?design marks,? a mark containing both wording and 
>>> design features in which the font, the colors and the artistic 
>>> elements are all part of the features protected by the trademark ? 
>>> and the individual letters and words are expressly NOT protected 
>>> outside of the design packaging in which they are presented.
>>>
>>> The GNSO?s STI Recommendation specifically */did not/* consider it 
>>> fair to provide the extensive protection of the Sunrise Period and 
>>> the Trademark Claims notices to lettering within a design mark ? 
>>> lettering offering ?disclaimed? and expressly not protected as text 
>>> alone and in isolation of its design ? and yet that is precisely 
>>> what the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has gone ahead and 
>>> accepted.Domain names and URLs don?t have design elements.
>>>
>>> We strongly request further inquiry into: how many design marks have 
>>> been accepted? How many of them expressly disclaim the very letters 
>>> and words that the TMCH is now protecting? How can we return to the 
>>> original intent of the GNSO/STI rules and the limits adopted by the 
>>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board?
>>>
>>> 2.*Section 3.3* *Proof of Use* is an important feature of the TMCH; 
>>> it is designed to prevent gaming of the system and unfair advantage 
>>> to certain new registrants over others. In addition to requesting 
>>> feedback from those who have used the Clearinghouse verification and 
>>> Sunrise registration processes, it is important to request input 
>>> from those who have observed these practices and wish to comment on 
>>> whether the balance and intent to prevent 
>>> individuals/organizations/companies from grabbing Sunrise spots 
>>> without any existing trademark use has been met. Should the use 
>>> requirements be expanded ? e.g., to trademarks of a certain age such 
>>> as one year?
>>>
>>> 3.*Section 3.4 Matching Rules*: This is an important section as the 
>>> rules of the GNSO?s STI were specially crafted to allow only exact 
>>> matches. What the section does not include, and should, is why that 
>>> decision was made. Going beyond ?exact matches? created a firestorm 
>>> of trouble for what is one person?s ?mark contained? is another 
>>> person word. Inclusion of examples in the next version of this paper 
>>> would be key to illustrating the point. Thus, an existing trademark 
>>> in ENOM (an ICANN-Accredited Registrar), but such rules, would 
>>> create a bar on the domain name registration of VENOM ? and entirely 
>>> different word (and one itself also trademarked now and it will be 
>>> again and again in the future).Similarly, the ___ registrations of 
>>> GOGGLE in the US Trademark Office did not prevent the registration 
>>> of the domain name GOOGLE.COM <http://GOOGLE.COM> or the 
>>> registration of GOOGLE as a trademark in the US Trademark Office.
>>>
>>> A few clear illustrations would convey the ambiguity and difficulty 
>>> of going beyond an ?exact match? and shed light on the rationale of 
>>> the existing rule ? a balanced approach as the next draft asks for 
>>> additional input and possible changes.
>>>
>>> 4.*Section 3.5 Trademark Clearinghouse Communications*:In the next 
>>> version and other related inquiries, we would like ICANN Staff to 
>>> reflect a much broader question.Should the goal have been only ?to 
>>> reach trademark holders worldwide to inform them of the services 
>>> related to the Clearinghouse via webinars and Q&F sessions? or 
>>> should it have been to inform the worldwide community of a massive 
>>> change in the rules of registration of domain names in the New gTLDs 
>>> and a new set of protections and notices that ALL registrants should 
>>> know about and understand.Did the TMCH devote even one second or one 
>>> dollar to outreach, webinars and Q&A session to explain the impact 
>>> of the Trademark [Claims] Notice to those receiving it, to answer 
>>> questions that may arise from ambiguities or the publication of this 
>>> new type of notice, or to ensure that those registrants who the 
>>> Trademark Notice was meant to protect were not artificially 
>>> ?chilled? from moving forward with the registration of a domain name 
>>> if they had the rights to do so.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> While the TMCH has highly publicized that many potential registrants 
>>> fail to ?click through? a Trademark Claim, where is the additional 
>>> information about why ? so that the forms and notices can be tweaked 
>>> to be fairer and more balanced?
>>>
>>> Our concern is of course that no education and no information was 
>>> provided to the global community by ICANN or the TMCH.This has left 
>>> noncommercial registrants, small businesses, and individuals without 
>>> the guidance that these rules and policies are designed to protect 
>>> all legitimate overlapping uses of words, names, phrases, acronyms 
>>> for future domain names, just as they have been protected for 
>>> existing ones (see e.g., ACM as the Association for Computing 
>>> Machinery and the Academy of Country Music, and DELTA as Delta 
>>> Faucets, Delta Airlines, Delta Sigma Theta and Delta the symbol for 
>>> change in mathematics.
>>>
>>> Is the TMCH only helping one side, and shouldn?t it be educating and 
>>> communicating its rules, policies, protections and balances with all 
>>> and for all users of the new gTLD domain name system?
>>>
>>> 5.*Section 4* *Sunrise Period*:We request that the questions in the 
>>> next draft and related reports be expanded to see if the sunrise 
>>> period gives unfair advantage to trademark owners far outside their 
>>> categories of goods and services. In cases where a New gTLD caters 
>>> to .PIZZA should Delta Airlines really have a right of first 
>>> registration?For New gTLDs and future gTLDs catering to individuals, 
>>> noncommercial organizations, religious groups, etc., should the 
>>> Sunrise Period exist at all?
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> Inquiry**into whether an automatic and upfront registration benefit 
>>> for existing trademark owners unfairly benefits McDonalds Restaurant 
>>> in a .FAMILY or .CATHOLIC gTLD is a question that truly needs to be 
>>> added and asked.Further, how can Sunrise Periods in future rounds be 
>>> more narrowly tailored to the limited rights of existing trademark 
>>> owners?
>>>
>>> 6.*Section 4.2 Limited Registration Periods* is an important section 
>>> and one that fairly highlights the legitimate reasons why registries 
>>> may want to open registrations to those who are not trademark 
>>> owners, but otherwise fit into a category, such as football players 
>>> seeking to register their names in .FOOTBALL prior to the opening in 
>>> General Availability.
>>>
>>> 7.Section 4.5 *Reserved Names.* Reserved names policy is one that 
>>> raises a lot of questions and should be clarified in the future 
>>> rounds. The idea of reserved unlimited numbers of domain names in a 
>>> gTLD and releasing them to any ?person or entity at Registry 
>>> Operator?s discretion? may and has led to gaming and anticompetitive 
>>> activity. Can these Reserved Name policies be used to cherry-pick 
>>> all of the best names by one industry competitor and bypass ICANN?s 
>>> rules barring closed generics?This is an important inquiry for the 
>>> next round.
>>>
>>> 8.*Section 5 Trademark Claims Service*:The Trademark Claims 
>>> Services, as discussed above, has raised a number of questions and 
>>> concerns. Questions we request be asked in future drafts and related 
>>> reports include:
>>>
>>> a)Is the Trademark Notice being shown to all Registrants?
>>>
>>> b)Do all registrants understand the trademark claims notice?
>>>
>>> c)Why are so many potential registrants not registering domain names 
>>> after reading the Trademark Notice? Are they actually cybersquatters 
>>> or are potential legitimate customers being ?chilled? by language of 
>>> the notice or the inability to understand the notice (either the 
>>> phrasing or not reading it in a language they speak?
>>>
>>> d)**How can we make the Trademark Notices better, clearer, fairer 
>>> and more accessible so that those protected by the notices are 
>>> protected and yet the limits, balances and fair use protections 
>>> adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are achieved as well?
>>>
>>> 9.*Section 5.2,* *Inclusion of Previously Abused Labels*: there is a 
>>> lot of concern re: how this non-policy was created and implemented 
>>> by ICANN.In light of the complaints brought against it, and 
>>> apologies issues, shouldn?t the report and future versions be asking 
>>> if this ?50+? policy should be reasonably limited, or rolled back 
>>> completely?
>>>
>>> 10.*Section 5.3, Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, may be a 
>>> completely invalid offering. *The GNSO?s adopted rules and those of 
>>> the ICANN Board were clearly limited in how long a Trademark Claims 
>>> Service would last.Trademark Owners are responsible for the policing 
>>> of their own marks and there are many private services and public 
>>> tools they can use. Should the ICANN Community be subsidizing or 
>>> allowing such an expanded and _even unlimited extension of the 
>>> Trademark Claims Service and what are the intended and unintended 
>>> consequences to the most vulnerable of our potential future 
>>> registrants: including noncommercial organizations, individuals and 
>>> small businesses and entrepreneurs?What is the impact on those in 
>>> developing countries?What is the impact of those who don?t speak 
>>> English (e.g., those now registering in our Internationalized Domain 
>>> Names)?Is the TMCH unlimited extension fair, is it being invalidly 
>>> subsidized or even paid for by the ICANN Community without 
>>> authorization and should it be stopped? _
>>>
>>> We strongly request that the inquiry of the next and similar reports 
>>> be expanded to include the questions above and whether the TMCH is 
>>> allowed to write its own rules. **
>>>
>>> 11.*Section 6,* *Uniform Rapid Suspension:*we would like to see the 
>>> next and future reports reflect that the URS was a controversial 
>>> mechanism -- an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap takedown mechanism for New 
>>> gTLDs ? and many were worried about whether registrants would be 
>>> able to respond.
>>>
>>> Clearly, registrants ARE responding, and in far greater numbers than 
>>> we expected given that half the URS claims receive a response. Do 
>>> Registrants have the information they need to respond? Do they 
>>> understand the special defenses offered in the URS? Are they using them?
>>>
>>> Additional questions that need to be asked in the next draft of this 
>>> report and similar reports must reflect the education and rights of 
>>> both sides, the claimant and the respondent, and they must include:
>>>
>>> A.Who is educating New gTLD Registrants globally on the existence of 
>>> the URS?
>>>
>>> B.Who is educating registrants about the key differences of the UDRP 
>>> and URS, including the much more rapid time needed for response, the 
>>> different standards of proof, and the much more expanded 
>>> defenses?Where are the ICANN Webinars, ICANN LEARN Websites, FAQ 
>>> pages and Q & A sheets?
>>>
>>> C.Who is educating Registrants about the appellate mechanism of the 
>>> URS?
>>>
>>> D.Is anyone using the Appellate Mechanism of the URS?
>>>
>>> E.Are Panelists being rotated as required by the URS rules?
>>>
>>> F.Is the limitation of the URS to English proceedings ? even in the 
>>> Internationalized Domain Names (!!) ? operating a barrier to 
>>> responses by Registrants? What percentage of URS cases are coming 
>>> from the IDNs?
>>>
>>> G.How can ICANN and the URS Providers improve the education of 
>>> Registrants around the URS rules, URS process, and special URS 
>>> defenses and rights for registrants?
>>>
>>> H.How can we improve monitoring of the monitoring and reporting of 
>>> the URS results?
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>>
>>> Our thanks again to the ICANN Staff for such a comprehensive report. 
>>> A huge amount of work was done, but work still remains. As in every 
>>> type of intellectual property rights protection system (legislative, 
>>> regulatory, etc.), the questions are always asked: are the rights 
>>> holders protected, but also is the public protected, are all future 
>>> rights holders protected, are free speech, freedom of expression, 
>>> fair use and the rights of all to use dictionary words, generic 
>>> words, common acronyms and phrases as well as their first and last 
>>> names protected to the fullest extent of national laws, and 
>>> international treaties? Are these rights in balance, and carefully 
>>> drafted by the IRT, the STI and when adopted by the GNSO and ICANN 
>>> Board?
>>>
>>> The next version of this report ? and all future reports including 
>>> the upcoming UDRP Review ? must include this fair and 
>>> comprehensively balanced inquiry. We must remain fully cognizant 
>>> that we are adopting these rules and seeking to protect the balanced 
>>> rights of the whole of the Internet Community, which is now the 
>>> world. This is not just a world of commerce, it is a world of free 
>>> speech, democratic development, and freedom of association, rights 
>>> that are impacted by restrictions on the use of words.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
>>>
>>> Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, NCSG 
>>> Representative to Special Trademarks Initiative Team
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Canada
>>>
>>> OTHERS ? NAMES, TITLES, AND/OR COUNTRIES WELCOME!!!
>>>
>>> Penn Engineering Overseers? Meeting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca    Skype: slanfranco
> blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150430/685c3e35/attachment-0001.html>