When: Wednesday, 24 April 2013. 16:00 UTC / This is a 120 Minute Session.
Adobe Connect Link: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130424-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Lanre Ajayi - NCA
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Avri Doria - NCSG
Elizabeth Finberg - RySG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Robin Gross - NCSG
Stephane Hankins - NCSG
David Heasley - IPC/IOC
David Maher - RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC/IOC
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan - NCA
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair – RrSG
Apologies:
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Guilaine Fournet – (IEC)
ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Brian Peck
Julia Charvolen
Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 24 APR 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
1. Roll Call / SOI Update
2. Review RySG Recommendation Proposal (TMCH, exceptions)
3. Review RCRC Designation Protection Proposal
4. Discuss Opportunities for compromised recommendations
5. Confirm next meeting (1 May 2013 @ 16:00 (120 MIN))
Action Items
1. None
Adobe Chat transcript for 24 April 2013:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 24 APR 2013 IGO-INGO Protections WG Call.
Alan Greenberg:On Whois call. Will join here soon
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):We are on the audio bridge as well.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I can hear the audio on the adobe connect.
Alan Greenberg:On now
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Once again, the IOC is NOT asking for protection of the acronyms.
Avri Doria:sorry i am late had to rebbot.
Julia Charvolen:Mary Wong joined the meeting
Mary Wong:Sorry I joined late and will have to leave early (smthg came up at work). Glad Avri is on for NCSG/NCUC.
David Roache-Turner:Hi all - sorry for the late arrival.
Alan Greenberg:dID OUR REQUEST TO gc INCLUDE ingoS?
Alan Greenberg:Sorry for case...
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg - I think it's unfair to characterize the IOC as a "squeaky wheel." We have a solid, and unique LEGAL position on which we have based our request for protection.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Thomas, are you saying there is broad support for protecting IOC/RC and IGOs?
Avri Doria:one can be both uniquely legal and squeaky
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):+1 David
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I cannot agree that there is such broad support.
Avri Doria:certainly NCSG is not part of any broad support.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Calling an organization a "squeaky wheel" implies that the protection is based solely on annoyance, rather than on a rational basis. But point taken Avri.
Mary Wong:And "support" should mean support of the ICANN community (SOs, ACs). Not quite the same thing as support from WG members (which will itself be reflected in the consensus call on the actual recs.)
Greg Shatan:@Kiran: I'm not questioning most of the merits of IOC's case, although I question the "uniqueness" aspect. of it.. I think you should take "squeaky wheel" as a compliment; you've done a good job for your client.. And I disagree with your characterization of what a "squeaky wheel" is. And your +1 does a good job of trying to shut the door behind you.
elizabeth finberg:I just joined the call.
Mason Cole 2:@Mary, you make a good point. This eventually will have to come to a vote.
Avri Doria:a vote. I though we worked on consensus basis where the chair tryies find the level of support. strong support, rough consensus, full consensus etc.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If our work on defining the pool of INGOs and IGOs is not fininshed, I finid it hard to say there is broad support for protection as it stands.
Avri Doria:i mean "a vote???"
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Agreeing with David's comments that the language of the RySG proposal merely states that there is no evidence in the GC response... is not actually shutting the door behind us Greg. And I'm really not sure that characterizing someone as a squeaky wheel can ever be considered a compliment. But certainly this is a silly side point.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We are not bound by GAC advice, and neither is the Board. We should avoid the impression of creating consensus or broad support if that is not the case.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Claudia, why do you think that the Board isn't bound by GAC advice?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I should say creating the impression of consensus.
Avri Doria:Kiran, becasue the bylaws 9and i understand CAlifornai law but Ia m not a lawyer so what do i know) specifically say the Board is not bound by GAC advice. it needs to consider it according to a process, but it is not bound.
David Roache-Turner:And if the Board would ever not follow GAC advice, I believe it would be bound to provide reasons for that.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):The Board has already indicated some problematic issues with the GAC Advice. We certainly should not ignore these.
Chuck Gomes (Verisign):I agree with Claudia that the Board is not bound to follow GAC advice but if they do not follow it there are procedures to follow.
Mary Wong:Bylaws are very clear - Board not bound by GAC Advice but must give rationale if they don't follow it. That's why the AGB had to specify the "presumption" that GA Advice be followed if the GAC consensus is not to approve a particular new gTLD app.
Avri Doria:David, indeed if they don't follow the advise the need to both consult with the GAc and publish their reasons for not following.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Not only are there procedures to be followed, but both organizations must enter into good faith discussions about compromise. They are not just allowed to reject GAC advice.
Avri Doria:Kiran, right, but that does not constitue being bound.
Avri Doria:they are bound to consider.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):indeed, and I never said tthey were bound, I merely asked Claudia a question. Indeed, they are bound to consider in good faith.
Avri Doria:true but "Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC): Claudia, why do you think that the Board isn't bound by GAC advice? "
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):which is a question?
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):am I wrong??
Greg Shatan:Wrong about what?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I found this interesting. Attributed to Chris Disspain, "The board believes that all these issues make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accept the advice as is. Rather than rejecting this advice we seek an acknowledgement from the GAC in its communique that there are issues to be worked through, and we seek agreement with the GAC that they will work with the board and staff on these issues from now until Durban [this July] when the board will make a decision?"
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg - that my question to Claudia was, in fact, a question.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Claudia - Taken in context, Chris is ONLY speaking abotu IGOs, not the IOC/RCRC, as a point of clarification.
Julia Charvolen:Robin Gross joined the meeting
Greg Shatan:@Kiran - It seemed like a challenge in the form of a question, i.e., that you were asking from a POV.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Please, we have enough issues in the group without reading vitriol into chat commentary.
Greg Shatan:No vitriol, just a point of view.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Just refrain from reading anything in, please. It was a question. I am not shy about expressing points of view as such.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):From our point of view, in addition to appropriately defining the pool of specially protected organizations, any special protection should avoid consent-based mechanisms, in so far as long-standing rights holders would need to apply to an protected organization for permission to use a name on the internet.
David Roache-Turner:Just to reiterate that the IGO's would also support an approach based on the precedent existing for country and territory names, which as CHuck mentioned also includes a mechanism in it for obtaining agreement of thr relevant government, subject to GAC and Baord review.
Avri Doria:yes i would oppose it.
Alan Greenberg:Avri's comment reminds me, the ALAC has stated strongly that there is no need for protection at the top level. If the existing objection processes are not sufficient for this, then we should invent a new one.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Avri's comments make me wonder whethere there would be broader support for weaker protections, including fee waivers, claims notices, etc. for both IGOs and INGOs.
David Roache-Turner:From an IGO perspective, if we end up going down the TMCH route, it would be important for IGOs that any exception process would be based on appropriately objective criteria, making reasonable allowance for potentially legitimate registrants of domain names which correspond to protected IGO acronyms to register such domains, but which also does not open the door to potentially abusive registrations across all new gTLDs where demonstrated legitimate interests and non-abusive use would be lacking. Simplicity , proportionality and cost-neutrality would also be important considerations.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Agreed David R-T
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree that balancing potential for gaming with the existence of legitimate interests is important. And I would add, it's also important that any recommendation would serve to protect existing rights not augment them.
Mason Cole:Just so I'm clear, are we now discussing "c" in the RySG document?
Mason Cole:Seems like we're migrating around
Berry Cobb:We are discussing Top Level Protections in general, not to any point on the RySG proposal.
Mason Cole:That's what I thought we were focused on. Taking my hand down then.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):@Greg, I want to avoid any misunderstanding by those reading the transcript or listening to the recording. This is your personal view, right and not the views of the IPC?
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):*chat transcript as well
Greg Shatan:My opinions are my own and do not represent the views of the IPC, which has not yet taken a position.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):Thanks, Greg
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):The GAC didn't approach ISO. (Nor the IEC, as I understand it.)
Greg Shatan:@Kiran, Can you clarify where your views should be attributed?
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):IOC, as my name is "Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC)" and I am listed as a representative from the IOC on all group documents.
Greg Shatan:@Kiran, Thanks. I thought so but didn't want to assume.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I'm not sure how widespread these issues among INGOs is. Which is quite unfortunate, especially since it would be our hope that any special protection would consider the public interest , among other legal reasons.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):No problem, Greg!
Mary Wong:@Mason, +1.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Alan.
Mary Wong:Although NCUC has not fully discussed the Ry SG proposal, I'm fairly confident that the group will not support protection for acronyms, even under a TMCH-like mechanism.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Mary, do you suppose that would include any protection, including a claims notice, for example?
David Roache-Turner:+1 Alan
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):LOL, well said Alan
Mary Wong:@Claudia, I don't know. I think much could depend on the details - e.g. where the IGO list ends, and what exactly is the TMCH mechanism in question (e.g. sunrise vs. claims vs. URS).
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Sure, thanks, Mary.
Mary Wong:For instance, a limited, closed list of IGOs with just a claims notice might work.
Mary Wong:(but this is just my view, not that of the group's)
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Mason.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Are IGO acronyms assigned to a trademark class?
Mary Wong:I cannot see NCUC supporting anything other than an exact match of an acronym (even assuming that there is support for a limited TMCH mechanism). I also think claims rather than sunrise, plus a URS, could be more aceptable.
Greg Shatan:@Avri: The "50 variants" would only come into play to the extent WHO (in your example) fought and won legal battles over particular variants.
David Roache-Turner:Agree with Mason also: at root, its about getting the balance right between legitimate and illegitimate users of domain names which ultimately correspond to a protected IGO acronym. We need a workable mechanism to manage potential co-existence with other legitimate right holders, but it needs to be a simple, cost-neutral and operationally feasible also. It is also important to bear in mind (especially for any TMCH-based approach) that the protection of IGO acronmys are not the same as trademark rights. Also, TMCH claims are predicated on curative access, would not provide a solution to IGO lack of access to the UDRP; the latter is hardly like to be something that could be quickly or easily redressed for purposes of timely protection before any new gTLDs would launch.
Mason Cole:Alan, +1 for the RrSG
Mary Wong:@Thomas, I understand. Contextually, though, 2 things: (1) Registry operators are free to design additional RPMs beyond what ICANN recommends (and we know they are/will); and (2) the more certainty there is with the actual IGO list, the more limited (and therefore balanced/apprropriate) the RPM at issue, e.g. sunrise.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Well said Greg.
Mary Wong:All, my apologies that I have to ring off at this juncture. Will follow along on email and transcript. Thx!
Thomas Rickert:I have to close the cue now!
Thomas Rickert:queue :-)
Alan Greenberg:We have not waived the TMCH entry requirements. We have replaced having a volid TM with being on a GAC list.
Avri Doria:i understan that.
Berry Cobb:If no names wind up on the Reserved List, there is no need for RSEP.
Avri Doria:i think being on a reserved list should be a pretty definite thing nd not easily undone.
David Roache-Turner:Just to note that because IGOs do not have standing as such under the UDRP (itself not a quick or easy issue to timely resolve), in practical terms would likely be difficult in practice to supply UDRP decisions in their favor regarding any attemp to access the 50+ CS strings now contemplated under the TMCH
Greg Shatan:Agree with Alan.
Berry Cobb:As for Claims notice output, protected org could use curative mechanisims URS and UDRP. Or at first monitor use of the acronym name, and if determined bad-faith use, utilize URS and UDRP
David Roache-Turner:THe GAC advice do come predicated on objective criteria...
Avri Doria:Berry, yes, and if someone wants the name on the reserved list, there it shold stay unless there is a really good reason.
Alan Greenberg:I am in the air and will not be on the call.
Berry Cobb:I will send a reminder for temp-chair to the list. If no one volunteers, Staff can help manage the call.
Kiran Malancharuvil (IOC):I volunteer Berry and Brian. ;)
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Kiran, to the degree they accept.
Berry Cobb:Great meeting today! Thank you everyone.
Avri Doria:i tink we sould take next week off.
