- Introductions and appointment of scribe; approval of
agenda
Ellen Shankman (the only one without the laptop!)
- Administrative matters
A. Membership committee report - 1 new member approved:
Adam Weiss of SNAP NAMES. Further action deferred in absence of Membership
Committee.
B. Treasurer's report - In good financial shape. Details
deferred in absence of Treasurer.
C. Report on internal communications/listserv/website -
now have member list service, continuing to maintain website.
D. Review timetable for constituency elections - Sept
for officers. All terms expire Nov/02. Elections by e-mail. Encourage
people to run for office.
- ICANN Restructuring
A. Review of proposals and IPC positions - Joint meeting
with ISP, BC & with some members of Board. IPC comments on 2 prior papers
submitted, but not on the 31/5/02 paper & the "BLUEPRINT" ( this one that
came out on 20 June). Blueprint proposes that 2 IPC representatives to
serve on the GNSO, 1 IPC person chosen to serve on Nom Comm. Some of our
concerns reflected. IPC should be on the ccNSO, but this remains to be
seen. Some discussion on the 'At-Large' position regarding place at the
table on board and on Nom Comm.
J.Scott's concern: Our emphasis on geographic diversity
at expense of knowledge about issues raises a concern.
Nom Comm more than a 'search committee'. Some risk but
can be a 'gap filling' function. Proposal codified reality about the board
making decisions where there is no consensus. Identifies groups that could
be interested in joining the table. IPC chance of getting to the ccNSO
table is only by way of Nom Comm.
Composition of the Board: Nom Comm a gap filler. Number
of appointed vs. elected members? No strong feeling. IPC will stay out of
the game.
How to get DRP process in ccTLDS? Top-level domain may
recognize need for UDRP but not of commercial second level. Some want to
adopt WIPO approach as easiest option, others want DRP to meet local laws.
We will need to approach this issue locally as well as through ICANN. .ZA
rep noted that top level domain may recognize need for UDRP but not of
commercial 2d level.
Guidance for Names Council representatives and other
attendees: focus on --
1. The ccNSO & where we fit
2. Procedures & time framework-- calling for task force.
Suggest Caroline Chicoine as IPC appointee -- excellent for task force.
3. Funding, especially in the U.S. to fight the 'tax'
issue (vs. user fees)
- Other public forum issues
A. Reassignment of .org - heard some pitches, more
tomorrow
B. ICANN Budget - Question of whether CCTLDS have enough
incentive to join and pay $. A separate Supporting Organization is helpful
but not enough by itself. Question of which are IP issues? Something
closer to what we have with UDRP and Whois as a 'Best Practices'.
C. Redemption Grace Period implementation proposal - Our
position is that this must be must implemented prior to WLS. Then
we wouldn't object to WLS. Our statement (attached) will be given in
writing to Board members.
D. VRGS proposal for Wait Listing Service - presentation
given by SNAP NAMES & argument that RGP doesn't need to hold up WLS.
1. Transparent pricing
2. Availability (universal) even access
3. When take the order - 100% effective
E. New TLD Evaluation Process - Report raises critical
questions--not the answers, July 15 is the deadline. Need to look at
quickly.
F. Whois - Working final report posted. Four key areas
of dissatisfaction. Will be focus of Shanghai meeting.
1. data accuracy
2. uniformity/consistency
(universal WHOIS& CCTLDS)
3. searchability restoring functions
4. marketing uses & bulk access& privacy
G. Internationalized Domain Names - nothing to report.
New papers?
- Other current issues
A. ICANN UDRP review - J. Scott's report: process
stalled by ICANN E&R. Both chairs from NC to turn over to new NC members.
B. WIPO Second Domain Name Secretariat Process and
subsequent WIPO activity
David Muls gave presentation regarding recommendations
made by Standing Committee on Trademarks. This recommendations will be
submitted to Governing Bodies of WIPO in September.
Additional protection discussed for following
categories:
trade names: no UDRP broadening to cover
personal names: No UDRP broadening to cover-
Intergovernmental entities (IGO's): WIPO recommends yes,
more protection.
Geographical terms: status quo
Country names: WIPO recommends broadening UDRP to cover
Pharmaceuticals- protect generics (INNs) from
registration as trademarks & in domain names. No action for time being.
Sarah Deutsch: amend UDRP vs new process ? INTA wants
new. Don't want to open can of worms that may backfire.
David: watch political fallout: members of WIPO: Concern
that trademark owners unwilling to let in other interests for UDRP.
Bad faith standard would apply to new areas covered by
UDRP (under WIPO recommendation): at least at same level as TM cases.
C. Registration transfers issue
This issue has been deferred while the Transfers Task
Force deals with WLS.
IPC Statement on the Proposed
Redemption Grace Period and the Wait Listing Service Proposal (WLS)
THE PROBLEM:
The IPC strongly believes that the
matter of accidental deletions is a problem that does not
distinguish among particular registries, registrars or registrants. While
some inadvertent deletions occur because of registrant failure to renew,
too many are due to registry or registrar error or misconduct. It is an
industry-wide concern, one that rightly should be addressed at the ICANN-level
as a matter of policy, and whose solution should be applicable across the
spectrum of gTLD registrars and registries.
Names associated with intellectual
property rights are particularly attractive to theft by hijackers and
speculators who have been known to modify information to make it appear as
though a request for deletion of the domain name has been made by the
registrar. A piecemeal solution of individual business models, such as the
proposed WLS, does not by itself address the concerns of intellectual
property owners, who, like ICANN, are particularly troubled about the
effects of accidental deletions on consumers and businesses that are
increasingly relying on the Internet to service their commercial needs.
THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD
TAKE PRIORITY:
The proposed redemption grace period is
thus far the best and most practical insurance policy yet derived to
handle these and similar problems. The IPC strongly urges that action
on the Redemption Grace Period must precede any implementation taken on
WLS .
The proposed redemption period of
30-days would serve as a "safety net" at the registry level, and "would
only come into play after a registrar had issued a 'delete command' to the
registry." A redemption grace period complements recent efforts by the
responsible global Internet community to create a more safe, stable, and
reliable online environment. The IPC has consistently worked with ICANN in
this regard and we are pleased to do so today with our acknowledgement of
support for the proposed redemption grace period, a mechanism that we
judge to be the most capable of helping domain name registrants rectify
inadvertent and/or negligent deletions.
CONCLUSION:
The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC),
one of the seven constituencies of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
(DNSO), is pleased to offer its support to the redemption grace
period for deleted names prior to implementation of any WLS.
