ICANN announcement on Board-GAC meeting - perhaps IPC "experts" get to speak also?

Sun Jan 23 13:04:29 CET 2011

Well, there are two interpretations here and unfortunately we just have to wait and see what will happen in that meeting. According to the interview posted after Cartagena, Rod and Peter have said that the meeting will not re-open any discussions on the substantive issues - i.e. Trademark protection. on the other hand, last week the UK's GAC representative Mark Carvell, held a meeting with various brand owners, who are lobbying against the STI recommendations. So there is a strong movement towards re-opening the trademark file and I suspect there will be pressure from GAC to ICANN - so it will be up to ICANN to decide how to play this. Personally, I am really against this kind of hard lobbying and, since we don't have the kind of resources of money that brand owners have, I am trying to generate some buzz in case things go awfully wrong that we can bring to ICANN's attention. I have posted a blog on why ICANN shouldn't open the trademark issues again: if you support this and want to sign it, you may do so via: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/01/lets-stop-the-big-fat-trademark-lobbying.html. Also, please fell free to circulate amongst your groups.

Thanks

KK

On 22/01/2011 21:35, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

Well, it's not as bad as it could be. The meeting will be viewable by anyone, i.e., "open" and webcast. I suspect that GAC and Board will decide for themselves what experts they want to attend however. It's not like we could expect them to take comments from the floor. But this is a Board-GAC consultation not a re-discussion of the whole issue (I hope), so that isn't such a problem, is it?

What's more interesting to me is the _absence_ of .xxx from the announced agenda. XXX is actually a bylaws-required consultation, in that the Board has decided to go ahead and the GAC doesn't want it to. In those cases a consultation is required by the bylaws and if, as the board has indicated, it doesn't choose to take the GAC's advice it can move ahead. This could be cleared up very quickly and easily. The whole new gTLD program, on the other hand, is likely to raise a number of complex objections; moreover, a consultation is not yet required because the Board hasn't made a decision that contravenes GAC advice

From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:05 PM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN announcement on Board-GAC meeting - perhaps IPC "experts" get to speak also?

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm

Note the following text from the ICANN press release:

 "... Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion..."

Does this mean the Board/GAC will hear from representatives of the intellectual property industry (since this meeting is in response to the lobbying that the IPC has done to various government representatives for more trademark rights)?

That would be terribly one-sided and unfair if this meeting goes down that path - another forum for the IPC to lobby the board (and only the IPC gets to present its views?)

Who decides what "subject matter experts" will be invited - staff, IPC, Board, GAC???

This announcement provides more questions than answers.

Best,

Robin

ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs
21 January 2011

During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process.

Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts - Kunstberg, Brussels.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

 1.  Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") advice and the current implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook.

 1.  Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either:
    *   arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or
    *   for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process.

The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to attend and observe proceedings.  Remote participation facilities will also be made available.

Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. Details of the agenda and logistics will be made available closer to the meeting.

Background

ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) plays a key role within ICANN, particularly with regard to providing advice to the Board on public policy issues. The GAC has been actively involved in the discussions on the introduction of new gTLDs and has regularly provided advice to the ICANN Board on a number of issues, which the Board has sought to address. The most recent GAC communiqué <http://gac.icann.org/system/files/Cartagena_Communique.pdf>  [PDF, 45 KB] identified a number of issues associated with the introduction of new gTLDs that the GAC considers outstanding, or unresolved to the GAC's satisfaction.

The new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm>  has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN community. In October 2007, following more than 18 months of community discussions, the GNSO formally completed its policy development work on new gTLDS and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations. In June 2008, ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the policy recommendations and directed staff to commence work on an implementation plan.

The first version of the Applicant Guidebook was posted for public comment on 1 October 2008, and since that time a further four versions have followed with the most recent, the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-5-en.htm>  published on 10 November 2010. Each version has been revised as a result of comments received via the respective public comment fora. The ICANN meeting in Cartagena provided the platform for discussion of the latest version, and provided an opportunity for the Board to hear first hand, the community's views.

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org