[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Tue Mar 1 05:08:19 EET 2016
Great summary Amr, and thanks for taking on the fight! It does seem a
little hopeless. Maybe I am just depressed by the frost-bite warnings
we are getting here on the Eve of March 1....
cheers Steph
On 2016-02-29 9:53, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow Councillors
> will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to adopt a
> charter for the PDP WG.
>
> Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as
> you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve
> consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me
> try to convey my perspective of what?s going on.
>
> First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO
> that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The
> contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and the
> BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand
> gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP
> has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first,
> it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The
> dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this
> one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern.
>
> During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a
> UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a number
> of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on the
> process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My
> argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due consideration
> by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary issues report,
> which was subject to public comment. We used to have reply periods to
> public comments, but that is not the case any more.
>
> At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by:
>
> 1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and
> preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other
> options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended
> to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our input,
> there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no review of
> the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should limit its
> review to the new gTLD RPMs.
>
> 2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the
> NCSG, IPC and BC.
>
> This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in the
> charter under ?Mission and Scope?:
>
>> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all
>> RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of
>> all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase
>> Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional
>> approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue
>> Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report,
>> the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during
>> the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not
>> reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes
>> place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is
>> consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in
>> consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this
>> manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its Charter
>> to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to grant the
>> request in light of information it considers relevant, including the
>> progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT)
>> Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In
>> the absence of consensus to change the two-phased approach, the
>> Working Group shall proceed with the two-phased approach already in
>> place.
>
> This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider
> the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups.
> After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this
> would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They
> didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A
> repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being
> considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is
> necessary. I don?t agree with this.
>
> What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the
> GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen
> then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the charter
> (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple majority of
> each house required to support either one. I don?t believe we would
> win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing something, we have no
> support within the GNSO on this.
>
> Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the
> charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to pass
> (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house).
>
> I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball
> is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with
> suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t
> believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option.
> Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I
> don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that
> we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering
> what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month of
> debating this issue.
>
> Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins:
>
> 1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including
> NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to the
> charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although possibly not
> crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the staff report,
> and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first scenario,
> although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have it considered.
>
> 2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the charter
> to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the protection
> of trademarks:
>
> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection
> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs
> to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the
> gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect
> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names.
>
> Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final
> recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another
> debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate
> registrations also be given its due respect.
>
> The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two phases)
> is the one we didn?t get.
>
> I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep
> you all as informed as possible on what?s going on.
>
> Would very much welcome the thoughts of others.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
>> *Subject: **[council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG*
>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2
>> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>"
>> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> *Cc: *"Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>)"
>> <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>>
>> Councilors:
>> On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss
>> the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs,
>> I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of
>> the Motion and draft Charter for same._I am hereby proposing them in
>> order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council
>> in Marrakech._
>> The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the
>> last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup.
>> The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second
>> sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new
>> language in Bold):
>> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection
>> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and
>> costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion
>> of the gTLD namespace,*which included certain safeguards to protect
>> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names*: the
>> Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse
>> (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise
>> periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the
>> Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs).
>> That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by
>> members of the subgroup.
>> The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter
>> language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope
>> portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG
>> the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first
>> with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was
>> general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for
>> such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had
>> taken positions not included within the three staff options contained
>> in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not
>> decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment
>> suggestions beyond the staff options ? which would include the
>> comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review
>> at all.
>> It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to
>> decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation
>> amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech.
>> Let me know if any of you have questions.
>> Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards,
>> Philip
>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>> *Virtualaw LLC*
>> *1155 F Street, NW*
>> *Suite 1050*
>> *Washington, DC 20004*
>> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>> *202-255-6172/cell***
>> **
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160229/54a5dbd0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list