[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

Kathy Kleiman kathy
Fri Oct 2 17:58:58 EEST 2015 

Please kill this practice, Ed. It goes against the whole rationale of a 
special set of protections solely and completely for New gTLDs.
Extending the Trademark Clearinghouse would be a similar travesty.

Best,
Kathy
:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> That's exactly what's happening. On renewal agreements with .CAT, .PRO 
> and .TRAVEL ICANN "negotiated" URS and other RPM's into the renewal 
> agreements. Rather than properly create consensus policy on this issue 
> through a PDP staff is creating de facto consensus policies through 
> contract. If we don't stop this technique now the potency of the GNSO 
> will forever be reduced.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>> In that case, I agree completely. No, URS was never created as 
>> consensus policy for legacy TLDs. It was expressly, solely and 
>> completely adopted (in writing) as consensus policy only for New 
>> gTLDs. If it is being used beyond that, please stamp it out in every 
>> way possible.
>>
>> Tx you,
>> Kathy
>>
>> :
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>> I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD 
>>> program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and 
>>> extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit 
>>> more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy 
>>> TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an 
>>> Issues Report.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus 
>>>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came 
>>>> from IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the 
>>>> GNSO PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all 
>>>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team 
>>>> was me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>>>>
>>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for 
>>>> and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the 
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via 
>>>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this 
>>>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and 
>>>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore 
>>>>> this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto 
>>>>> consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO 
>>>>> as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this 
>>>>> staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go 
>>>>> the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with 
>>>>> others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would 
>>>>> have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also 
>>>>> something we could consider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>>>     don't recall if there was any support at the public comment
>>>>>>>     period.
>>>>>>>     ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and
>>>>>>     winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public
>>>>>>     comment process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit
>>>>>>     risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't
>>>>>>     think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although
>>>>>>     if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM 
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host
>>>>>>>         of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in
>>>>>>>         Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will
>>>>>>>         be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other.
>>>>>>>         London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last
>>>>>>>         European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other.
>>>>>>>         That is more diverse than our last two Latin American
>>>>>>>         meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held
>>>>>>>         in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy
>>>>>>>         is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would
>>>>>>>         suggest it needs some work. ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>>>     which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it
>>>>>>>     sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>>>     different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new
>>>>>>>     meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities.
>>>>>>     I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can
>>>>>>     get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are
>>>>>>     large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to
>>>>>>     find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub
>>>>>>     city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as
>>>>>>     part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from
>>>>>>>         Monday? can be found here:?
>>>>>>>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>         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/20151002/202646e3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list