When: Wednesday, 28 November 2012. GMT Standard Time. 15:00 UTC / This is a 120 Minute Call.
08:00 PST, 11:00 EST, 16:00 London, 17:00 CET
Adobe Connect Link: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20121128-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Donna Austin – AusRegistry
Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Elizabeth Finberg – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Ricardo Guilherme – RySG
Robin Gross – NCSG
Stephane Hankins - IPC
David Heasley – IPC/IOC
Evan Lebovitch – ALAC
David Maher – RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC/IOC
Osvaldo Novoa-ISPC
David Opderbeck - NCSG
Christopher Rassi – Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA
Gregory Shatan – IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – Observer
David Roache-Turner - Observer
Liz Williams – Individual
Apology :
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Wolfgang Kleinwachter - NCSG
Iliya Bazlyankov – RrSG
Paul Diaz – RySG
Avri Doria – NCSG
ICANN Staff:
Margie Milam
Brian Peck
Berry Cobb
Julia Charvolen
Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 28 NOV 2012 @ 15:00 UTC (120 Min):
1. Roll Call
2. Statements of Interest
3. Status of General Council Request
4. Comm to GNSO from new gTLD
5. Continue Exploration of Issues defined in Charter
5a.Review Request for Input from SO/AC & SG/C
6. Review IGO-INGO Work Plan
7. Next steps & confirm next meeting
Action Items:
1. None yet
Note from the IGO-INGO Chair:
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to share some thoughts with you in preparation of tomorrow's call.
First of all, as you know, we have sent the request for a legal assessment to General Counsel, but have not yet received a reply. I have asked staff to contact GC to inquire when we can expect an answer. Hopefully we will be able to factor this into our work plan shortly.
In order to expedite our work, I would like to seek your views on structuring the work as described below. Please note that this is all tentative. Hence, I have not used wording such as "potential protections", but only "protections" assuming we all agree that all factors are up for discussion. You might also think that answering some of the questions is premature since the questions only need to be answered if we get that far in the process, but since time is of essence, I would like the group to think about all the things that might be relevant from the very beginning.
A. Qualification criteria
1. One vs. multiple types
- Shall there be one set of qualification criteria?
- Shall there be different sets of criteria for different types of organizations? If so, which?
2. Eligibility criteria
- Protection under Treaties / Laws?
- Take IOC/RC or another organization as benchmark?
B. Eligibility check
1. Who should determine whether qualification criteria are met?
- ICANN?
- Contractor?
- Third party?
- Use an existing list?
C. Protection(s)
- Addition to the reserved names list
- Modified reserved names list with exemption process
- Modified RPM
D. Admission to protections
1. Should all organizations fulfilling the Qualification criteria and who have passed the eligibility check get the protections?
a) Per se?
b) Upon application?
c) Subject to additional criteria?
- In case of 1c), what could additional criteria be?
- The organization must evidence having been exposed to harm (UDRP cases?, court decisions?, targeted attacks?)
- The organization must evidence that it is likely to face harm?
Adobe Chat Transcript:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 28 NOV 2012 IGO-INGO Conference Call.
Evan Leibovitch:hi all
Margie Milam:hi
Osvaldo Novoa:Hi
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):hi all
Julia Charvolen:Robin Gross joined the call
Berry Cobb:Everyone has the ability to scroll the document on their own.
Julia Charvolen:Liza Williams joined
David Maher:re: protections - IF ANY
David Maher:I object to considering these questions before we discuss the overarching question of whether there should be any protections.
Liz Williams:@David +100
Elizabeth Finberg:I agree with David. The first ad foremost consideration is one of policy--not implemenation.
Berry Cobb:I will send a word doc out to the list, so that Redline features may be used
Liz Williams:The approach goes way to far ahead with the presupposition the principle of whether there should be any protections. If the answer is no, then no work is required.
Elizabeth Finberg:+1
Liz Williams:it is not "regarding them in the abstract". There are international treaties and law in place already that give protections. why would we seek additional protections (which would be mandatory for registries to adopt) which are outside international law.
Liz Williams:Could I suggest that we do a straw poll to assess the response to David's suggestion?
David Opderbeck:I agree with Robin's comment.
David Maher:@ Robin +1
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):Totally disagree with Robin's comments, as several arguments have already been presented on the insufficiency of RPMs, not to mention the necessity to apply international law
Liz Williams:It means dealing with "(ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC),...
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):ICANN is not supposed to trample on such internationally binding statutes - the main thing here is to ensure that any such policies are in line with those statutes
Osvaldo Novoa:I think there is a clear position in the GAC, supported by the Board, to grant the protections. If we don`t do accept that and try to implement them, the Board will do it by itself.
David Maher:There is no trampling on "binding statutes" Such statutes do not exist.
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):They do: they are called internatinoal treaties
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):international
David Maher:THe Board is supposed to accept the policy decisions made by a PDP
David Maher:The treaties do not bind ICANN to give protection to domain names.
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):they absolutely do - ICANN is not outside the scope of international and domestic law - its bylaws just reiterate this basic fact
Liz Williams:and why aren't those problems resolved in the same way as is currently done now?
David Maher:This is a legal question on which we disagree.
Osvaldo Novoa:I think that what David just wrote is the issue. Since the treaties don't bind ICANN the GAC understands there is a need to have a policy that will do that
David Maher:Exactly
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):ICANN is not a party to a treaty for the basic reason that it is not a country or IGO - this is totally different from not being "subject" to international and domestic law, because it definitely is
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):so if ICANN needs to enact its own policy to confirm that, no problem - what is problematic is to have policy that goes against established law
Osvaldo Novoa:Sorry but I am not a lawyer, but I think that the idea is to prevent the registration of domains that might affect the legal rights of certain international organizations, the law protects them but after the fact and the idea is to have measures that prevent that from happening.
Elizabeth Finberg:We need to consider the need for protection of OGOs/ONGOs against the need to protect the internet as whole
Elizabeth Finberg:INGOs
Greg Shatan:I don't think it is a matter of "against" -- I think that protections of IGOs/INGOs in this regard do protect "the internet as whole" (whatever that is exactly...)
Elizabeth Finberg:by that I mean that the internet is a public resource and we should take care before erecting barriers at the expense of due process
Liz Williams:The bias is easy to remove. We need to take a straw poll as to whether additional protections are required. Everyone has read the documents and knows the issues and risks associated with this issue.
Liz Williams:Once that question is answered, you can then move to a discussion of implementation advice (which isn't policy) to think about any additional systems.
Liz Williams:If there is no consensus about the first question then we advise the ICANN Board of that finding. It may or may not require more work. This is the point of a bottom up policy devleopment process.
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):+1 Greg
David Roache-Turner:+2 Greg
Thomas Rickert:I have to close the queue now!
Thomas Rickert:After Alan that is!
David Maher:That's why the UDRP was created
David Maher:We are not sayiing that
David Maher:The IRT/STI dealt with that question
David Maher:How can you prove a negative?
Alan Greenberg:Perhaps wortwhile noting that full blocking (with some excemptions) of a name (INGO/IGO or any TM) is completely possible and withing current rules. The only issue is the cost.
Greg Shatan:Sorry, which question did the IRT/STI deal with, and can you provide some more specific citation (document, section and/or page)?
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):+1 David Roache
David Maher:IRT/STI developed what are now the RPMs in the current Applicant Guidebook
Greg Shatan:There's nothing inherently impossible (or even difficult) in proving a negative. See, e.g.
Greg Shatan:http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
Greg Shatan:It's really a question of proving (or providing support for) a position or point of view. "You can't prove a negative" is a charming statement, but not true (or even relevant).
Donna Austin, AusRegistry:1900 UTC is 4am in Melbourne
Ricardo Guilherme (Universal Postal Union):doodle would be good
David Roache-Turner:+1 ricardo on timing
Donna Austin, AusRegistry:sorry 1900 is 6am in melbourne, so ik
