December 2018 - council - lists.icann.org

Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 20 December 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine 21 Dec '18

21 Dec '18

Dear Councilors, Please find the action items, as stated during the meeting, below arising from the GNSO Council call held on the 20 December 2018. Please take note of the action items coming out of the Council meeting and the proposed timing for delivering on these actions. Please also note the action items pertaining to reviewing both the PDP3.0 Implementation Plan and the GNSO Strategic Planning Session agenda which are assigned to all councilors. Please ensure your wiki logins are up to date as all Action Items have been assigned to councilors and/or staff and posted on the Action Item wiki page here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. If you are logged into the wiki when you go to that page, your name will be highlighted alongside the action item assigned to you. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20 DECEMBER 2018 Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action Items List Action Items: * Council leadership to develop draft response to the Cross Community Engagement Group on Internet Governance, providing input on the GNSO Council’s expected engagement with the group. Item 3: Consent Agenda Action items: * GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Barcelona GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board and inform GAC Chair. * GNSO Secretariat to communicate to staff supporting the ICANN Fellowship Program that Andrew Mack has been selected as the program mentor for a period of one year. * GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those who applied to be the mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program who were not nominated, thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise * GNSO Secretariat to inform Heather Forrest that the she has been confirmed to serve as the GNSO representative to the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee for the remainder of the 2-year term. * Support staff to the Standing Selection Committee (SSC) to inform the SSC that the leadership team has been confirmed. Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Action items: * Council leadership and Council to continue developing proposed path forward for the Working Group’s Final Report. Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update Action Items: * ICANN staff to send reminder of public comment close date. * Council leadership to prepare draft response to Board letter that inquired about deadlines and back-ups plans. * GNSO Secretariat to send final response to Cherine Chalaby and the ICANN Board. Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Reserve Fund Action Items: * Keith Drazek to send note to Council list, soliciting additional comments on guidance / principles for how the reserve fund should be replenished. * Depending upon feedback received, Council leadership to prepare draft letter to communicate Council concerns. * GNSO Secretariat to send final response to Cherine Chalaby and the ICANN Board. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 Implementation Plan Action Items: * Councilors to review PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan and provide input to Council list, preferably in advance of the Strategic Planning Session. Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - 2019 Strategic Planning Session Action Items: * Councilors to review draft Strategic Planning Session agenda and determine if they want to volunteer to help lead / contribute to any portions of the agenda. Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS Action Items: * Council to consider commenting on ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 here (11 February 2019 close date): https://www.icann.org/public-comments/strategic-plan-2018-12-20-en [volunteers: ] * Council to consider commenting on the Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews here (11 February 2019 close date): https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2018-12-17-en [volunteers: Rafik Dammak, Elsa Saade] Thank you, Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Deadline for public comments on EPDP Initial Report - Friday, 21 December 23:59 UTC
by Caitlin Tubergen 21 Dec '18

21 Dec '18

Dear All, As noted in Rafik’s EPDP update during today’s call, the deadline to submit public comments on the EPDP’s Initial Report is Friday, 21 December at 23:59 UTC. As Rafik also noted, no extensions will be granted due to the EPDP’s expedited timeline. While we are aware many of you are working to complete your comments, we wanted to send you a courtesy reminder of the impending deadline. Additionally, we have attached an FAQ document on commonly-asked questions we’ve received regarding the Google Form. We hope you find this helpful. Please feel free to reach out to us if you have any additional questions, and happy holidays to all! Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin EPDP Policy Staff Support

1 0

Council Leadership Team Recommendation on IGO-INGO CRP
by Drazek, Keith 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hi all, As mentioned in my update email yesterday, from the list of multiple options presented during our November Council meeting, the Leadership Team, working with staff, has narrowed the list to a single recommendation and welcomes further Council discussion during both our December and January meetings. The recommendation for Council consideration and, importantly, for input from the SGs and Cs, is outlined below, with some additional notes for context. Again, this is not subject to a decision at our 20 December meeting, but is an opportunity for further discussion and deliberation. I recommend that we set a February or March deadline for making a final decision and voting. We propose: 1. The GNSO Council sends a letter to the GAC acknowledging the GAC's letter from Barcelona and welcomes further dialogue and any additional information relevant to our deliberations. 2. The GNSO Council sends a letter to the WG informing the WG of the Council's proposed approach to the 5 recommendations in the Final Report. 3. In February/March 2019, the GNSO Council approves Recommendations 1-4 and forwards them to the Board. These recommendations received consensus support of the PDP WG and, while they conflict with GAC Advice, they do not set new or change existing GNSO consensus policy or make changes to the URS or UDRP. 4. Concurrently, the GNSO Council accepts (not approves) Recommendation #5 and refers it to the RPM PDP WG for further consideration as part of its Phase 2 work on UDRP (scheduled to begin Q4 2019 or Q1 2020). NOTES: As we've discussed, if approved and implemented, Recommendation #5 would make changes to the UDRP in one specific respect while another ongoing PDP WG is chartered by the GNSO to address UDRP holistically. As such, we believe they should be considered together. This would give the GAC and the impacted parties (IGOs) another opportunity to participate in the policy development work and would prevent a situation where the ICANN Board might reject Recommendation #5 or initiate a GAC-GNSO consultation process on Recommendation #5. Such a step would essentially take the decision-making out of the GNSO and would likely put us back at square one. In our previous discussions, we had resisted the splitting of recommendations based on process concerns, because, if we had a process issue with one recommendation, or a sub-set of recommendations, that process issue likely would have existed for the entire final report. However, we are not making this recommendation/decision based on a process concern; we are making the distinction between Recommendations 1-4 and 5 on the basis that 1-4 deal primarily with the specific issue of access to UDRP/URS for IGOs and/or they do not impact the future work of the RPM PDP WG, while 5 deals with the issue of jurisdictional immunity and changes to UDRP that substantively may result in IGOs receiving less protection than the current situation. Furthermore, because there is an overlap between two PDPs focused on UDRP, making the Recommendation 5 changes now, before the RPM PDP concludes its work, is premature. The issues should be considered together in a holistic manner. Thanks, and I look forward to continued discussion on this important topic. Regards, Keith

1 0

Updates for 20 December GNSO Council Meeting
by Drazek, Keith 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hi all, Just a few updates in preparation for our 20 December GNSO Council Meeting. With an eye toward wrapping up open action items, I have proposed some target dates for next steps and completion. I welcome further input and comment on the following points from Rafik and Pam and our staff colleagues in advance of our 20 December call. 1. FCS Appointee: As outlined in my email of 4 December, we will be confirming Heather Forrest as the permanent GNSO representative to the Fellowship Selection Committee (FCS). I confirmed with Heather that she is still available and there have been no other expressions of interest or opposition. This will be completed at our December meeting. 2. Cross-Community Engagement Group (CCEG) on Internet Governance: The Leadership Team and staff discussed this in early December, and agreed we need to make a decision on whether to charter the CCEG-IG, or to allow it to be less formal. We were advised by the ccNSO Chair that the ccNSO does not intend to become a chartering organization at this time, but that ccNSO members may continue to participate. While I strongly support engagement between and among the ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and the ICANN Community on issues related to Internet Governance, I do not have strong feelings about whether or not the group needs a charter and the associated structure and reporting requirements, which in turn drive resource demands. However, in the interest of making and communicating a GNSO Council decision, I recommend that the GNSO not become a Chartering Organization and we allow the group to meet more informally and on an ad hoc basis as needed. I recommend we have further discussion at our 20 December meeting, and make a decision at our January meeting in Los Angeles. 3. IANA Functions Review (IFR) Co-Chair Appointment: Looking ahead to early 2019, the GNSO Council may have an action item to appoint a Co-Chair, along with the ccNSO) to the IANA Functions Review team. We anticipate a finalization of IFR membership sometime in January or early February, which will define the pool of possible Co-Chair candidates. The Leadership Team will continue to monitor this and alert the Council if it appears we will need to invoke the SSC (in the event of multiple candidates) or if the IFR team members will self-identify its Co-Chairs. Regardless, the Council will have an action in Q1 2019 to identify, appoint, or confirm the GNSO Co-Chair to the IFR, ideally at our February meeting. 4. Call for Volunteers -- Drafting Team on charter for ICANN Procedure of Handling Whois conflicts with Privacy Law: The Leadership Team and staff discussed this in early December, and agreed it is premature to issue a call for drafting team volunteers while the work of the EPDP is ongoing. We agreed to push any call for volunteers until such time the EPDP Final Report is issued and the Council can assess any implications of the EPDP recommendations on this Implementation Advisory Group. We will revisit this action item following the publication of the EPDP Final Report and discuss it during our March Council meeting at ICANN 64 in Kobe. 5. ICANN Reserve Fund and Auction Proceeds: Just a reminder that we deferred discussion of this item from our November meeting due to a time crunch. In Barcelona and during our November meeting, it was agreed that the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies would have the lead on developing any recommended positions, and if any, the Council would discuss and compare notes to determine if there was consensus to take some action or position. Having seen and heard no SG/C recommendations, we will have the opportunity to discuss this at our 20 December meeting and it will then be removed as an agenda/action item. 6. IGO-INGO CRP Final Report: The Leadership Team and staff met and discussed this topic in early December, and Pam, Rafik and I met again this week to review possible next steps. At our last Council meeting, it was generally agreed that Council outreach to both the GAC, in response to Manal's letter to Heather in Barcelona, and to the IGO-INGO PDP WG, could be helpful in further informing the Council as we deliberate on the Final Report. We have drafted a letter responding to the GAC welcoming further information relevant to our discussions, which we will share on the list for further Council input following our 20 December meeting. We have not yet developed text for outreach to the PDP WG, so that remains an open action item and available to us. From the list of multiple options presented during our November Council meeting, the Leadership Team has narrowed the list to a single recommendation and welcomes further Council discussion during both our December and January meetings. The recommendation for Council consideration and, importantly, for input from the SGs and Cs, will be sent via a separate email prior to the 20 December Council meeting. This is not subject to a decision at our 20 December meeting, but will be an opportunity for further discussion and deliberation. I recommend that we set a February or March deadline for making a final decision and voting. Thanks in advance to you all, and I look forward to our upcoming Council meeting and discussion. Best, Keith

3 2

Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback - ICANN CEO- Göran Marby
by Nathalie Peregrine 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/draft-fy20-operating-plan-and-budget-now-av… Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback As a not-for-profit organization working in the public interest, one of the ICANN organization's most important responsibilities is to develop an annual operating budget. We posted our Draft Operating Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2020<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en>. Long-term financial planning and fiscal responsibility is necessary, and can only be achieved when the ICANN org, Board, and community work together to properly plan. In FY20, we continue to anticipate minimal growth in funding; it is forecasted at $140.1 million, up 2% from FY19. Expenses are budgeted below funding at $137.1 million. As a result of the budgeted increase of the Reserve Fund, the budgeted funding is slightly higher than last year. We've budgeted to contribute approximately $3 million (2 to 3% of the total budget) to the Reserve Fund, which will not have any negative impact to planned work. Annual allocation to the Reserve Fund will be the standard approach, at least until it is replenished to the minimum target level. This simply is the right thing to do. Constituency and fellowship travel support will remain at the same level as FY19, as will the ICANN org staff, which stands at approximately 400 people. To ensure the best support for the community's work, we have controls in place to hire or replace staff only when clearly required, but we still ensure the best support for the community's work after driving efficiency improvements. We've also brought the timeline for Public Comment forward to begin before the end of 2018. We've extended the comment period to 53 days to give you more time to review the documents. You will find five detailed documents, with content broken into six modules by topic: Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, Direct Policy Support, DNS Marketplace and Identifier Ecosystem, Technology and DNS Security, Engagement, and Reviews. The FY20 planning cycle is the final year of the current strategic plan, which makes it a transition year, as we are developing the 2021-2025 Strategic Plan in parallel. During FY20, we will use the new strategic plan to plan for FY21. You, the community, play an essential role in planning for the year ahead. We need and want your feedback and input. I look forward to productive discussions about this proposed Budget over the coming months before it's finalized in March 2019. Please take action! Share your comments here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en> during the Public Comment process. David A. Olive | Senior Vice President Policy Development Support ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://3>

1 0

FW: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Response to "Procedural options for IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP" email sent to GNSO Council mailing list
by Drazek, Keith 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hi all, As previously discussed, I am forwarding emails collected on this topic. See below. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:39 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com; Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com; Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent(a)gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Response to "Procedural options for IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP" email sent to GNSO Council mailing list Please forward to the GNSO Council mailing list the 2 emails of December 4, 2018 (two weeks ago) that were previously sent to your attention: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-December/001413.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-December/001414.html as was earlier promised: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022106.html "In the future, I will collect and package these communications for Council consideration rather than forwarding them individually." The GNSO Council meeting is in 2 days, so it would be best to forward them in advance of that call. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:29 PM George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > P.S. [Please also forward this to the GNSO Council Mailing list] > > To document the "false narrative" being pushed by some vocal IGOs, see > for example the post in the "small group" mailing list from the OECD > rep: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/000156.html > > "As we have discussed at length, the mutual jurisdiction provision of > the UDRP in fact prevents IGOs from using the UDRP." > > As was mentioned in the prior email, this was completely debunked > after the working group consulted the historical record of UDRP cases, > and showed that in fact multiple IGOs had already successfully > utilized the existing procedure. This was noted on that mailing list > later that day: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/000159.html > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:28 AM George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > [please forward this to the GNSO Council mailing list] > > > > I read that Brian Beckham of WIPO is claiming that "false statements" > > are being made with regards to the IGO PDP, according to his email at: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022106.html > > > > The single statement he complains about is arguably true, namely > > that WIPO and the OECD have been the primary IGOs in the GAC that > > have been pushing this issue. I'm confident that if the GAC mailing > > list was public, we'd see the same thing. > > > > At ICANN 63, where there was a public GAC meeting that discussed this topic: > > > > https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901596 > > https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/192334/1540588197.pdf?1540 > > 588197 > > > > Jonathan Passaro (of the OECD) spoke (starting on page 4 of the PDF > > transcript) and Brian Beckham (of WIPO) spoke (starting at the > > bottom of page 7), but not a single other IGO spoke to the issue (a > > few reps from national governments did speak briefly in response to > > their statements). > > > > It's ironic that Mr. Beckham is suddenly concerned about "false > > statements", given that he tried to distort reality with his own > > demonstrably false statement at ICANN 60, see: > > > > https://icann60abudhabi2017.sched.com/event/CbFM/gnso-igo-ingo-curat > > ive-rights-protections-pdp-wg-face-to-face > > https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann60abudhabi2017/67/Transcript%20IGO > > %20INGO%20CRP%20Abu%20Dhabi%2001%20Nov.pdf > > > > We were discussing the number of UDRP cases that had been brought by > > IGOs (on page 25). > > > > "Philip Corwin: I just want to add to that. I note in a chat room > > that one of our working group members noted that there have been > > fewer than a dozen UDRPs filed by IGOs in the last 20 years." > > > > (it was I who had pointed that out in the Adobe Connect chat room) > > > > But Brian Beckham then falsely claimed (on page 26) that the number > > was actually only 2! > > > > "Brian Beckham: Thank you. Brian Beckham from WIPO for the record. > > Just a small point of clarification, I think - I’m not on the chat, > > but this reference to less than a dozen, if my memory serves, it was > > actually two cases that have been identified over almost the past 20 > > years, for whatever that’s worth, for historical context. Correct, > > two." > > > > This was clearly false. Footnote 5 at the bottom of pages 79 and 80 > > of the initial report of the PDP identified various UDRPs brought by > > IGOs: > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ig > > o-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf > > > > and it was certainly more than 2 (and less than a dozen): > > > > "Respectively, in International Mobile Satellite Organisation and > > Inmarsat Ventures Limited (formerly known as Inmarsat Holdings > > Limited) v. Domains, EntreDomains Inc. and Brian Evans, D2000-1339 > > (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000); International Bank For Reconstruction and > > Development d/b/a The World Bank v. Yoo Jin Sohn, D2002-0222 (WIPO > > May 7, 2002); and Bank for International Settlements v. BFIS, > > D2003-0984 (WIPO March 1, 2004), Bank for International Settlements > > v. BIS, > > D2003-0986 (WIPO March 2, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. > > James Elliott, D2003-0987 (WIPO March 3, 2004), Bank for > > International Settlements v. G.I Joe, D2004-0570 (WIPO (Sept. 27, > > 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. BIS, D2004-0571 (WIPO > > Oct. 1, 2004), and Bank for International Settlements v. Fortune > > Nwaiwu, D2004-0575 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2004). A few other matters are > > catalogued in the Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions, > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex/, as involving > > IGOs. In one, involving the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and > > Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), a decentralized agency of the European > > Union, the complaint was denied due to its failure to establish > > rights to marks or services. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs > > and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) v. Virtual Clicks / Registrant > > ID:CR36884430, Registration Private Domains by Proxy, Inc., > > D2010-0475 (WIPO July 7, 2010). In another, involving UNITAID, an > > IGO hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO), trademark rights > > were assigned by a fiduciary agreement to a private enterprise, > > which registered them on behalf of the WHO and UNITAID. Lenz & > > Staehelin Ltd v. Christopher Mikkelsen, D2012-1922 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2013)." > > > > Mr. Beckham had commented on that report, so would have been aware > > of these cases. Instead, he made up his own numbers and asserted > > that they were "Correct." > > > > I pointed this out the same day, on November 1, 2017 on the IGO PDP > > mailing list: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/00089 > > 5.html > > > > but Mr. Beckham has made no correction that I know of to his obvious > > false statement. > > > > Indeed, WIPO has a history of trying to distort reality to further > > their aims. They maintain a list of "UDRP Related Court cases" at: > > > > https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ > > > > When unlisted court cases were brought to WIPO's attention that > > belonged on that page, e.g. > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002940.html > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003058.html > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003059.html > > > > they literally *changed* the selection criteria in order to prevent > > those cases from being added to the list (where the registrant went > > to court and had a positive outcome), in order to distort the truth > > about court challenges to UDRP decisions. > > > > They even went further, and inexplicably *removed* a case they had > > previously listed that still qualified under the "new criteria", > > which my company brought and won in court, as was documented at: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-June/003147.html > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-June/003148.html > > > > This case was removed after I voted against Mr. Beckham as a > > co-chair in the RPM PDP, presumably as a form of retaliation. > > > > Ultimately, the IGO PDP working group disproved the false narrative > > being pushed by some voval IGOs that they don't have access to > > existing RPMs and that they require their own special procedures, by > > documenting the fact that IGOs have *already* successfully utilized > > the UDRP (see the list of cases noted above). > > > > Then, the IGO PDP working group went above and beyond the call of > > duty and made Recommendation #3, which highlighted that IGOs have > > the ability to elect to have a complaint filed by an assignee, agent > > or licensee under the current policies (thus not requiring any > > change to consensus policies, except to educate further on how best > > to utilize existing procedures). In fact, one UDRP has already been > > filed using that method, by a law firm on behalf of UNITAID, see: > > > > https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 > > > > as was noted in the footnote cited above. Any IGO that is adamant > > about "immunity" can avoid the issue entirely, simply by finding > > someone else to bring the complaint on their behalf. Furthermore, > > IGOs could still complaint to law enforcement and to registrars, > > just like anyone else. > > > > If one really thinks about matters deeply, the only scenario that an > > IGO should be concerned about is where they have brought a UDRP/URS > > dispute that is *not meritorious*, which is decided incorrectly by > > the panel, and which the registrant (rightly) wishes to have > > determined via the courts. (A scenario where the registrant *loses* > > in court on the merits doesn't harm the IGO.) > > > > Only a scenario where the registrant *wins* in court would harm the > > IGO. That's the scenario where the IGO (like any other party to a > > dispute) indeed *should* be harmed, where they initiated an > > unmeritorious claim, and ultimately lost. ICANN should not be > > interfering with this natural outcome, which exists for all parties > > to disputes. IGOs are not so "special" that they should be able to > > initiate disputes with complete impunity, when those cases are not > > meritorious. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:58 AM Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Mr. Keating, > > > > > > Thanks for your email. Your input is welcome as the newly constituted 2018-2019 GNSO Council continues our deliberations. > > > > > > I have forwarded your email to the GNSO Council mailing list. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Keith Drazek > > > GNSO Chair > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 11:26 AM > > > To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; icann(a)leap.com; > > > rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com; > > > nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org; mary.wong(a)icann.org; > > > steve.chan(a)icann.org; darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com; > > > mpsilvavalent(a)gmail.com > > > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Response to > > > "Procedural options for IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP" email sent > > > to GNSO Council mailing list > > > > > > Dear Mr. Drazek, > > > > > > I just wanted to second the comments made by Mr. Kirkos in his email below. > > > > > > I was indeed the person who came up with the "vitiation" idea and proposed it to the group. I also support the position that there was no capture and that Mr. Kirkos' referencs to the factual development of the various proposals was correct. The idea that there was "capture" came up only after it became clear tha the WG did not support by concensus any form of creating an independent ADR/arbitration right for these limited number of potential claimants. I was told many times that the concensus decision would not "fly" because they were not politically acceptable by the IGO/NGOs and by their supporters on the GAC. I disagreed with those statements then and I trust we are not witnessing them yet again. > > > > > > I can also confirm that notwithstanding repeated invitations, the IGO/NGOs simply refused to participate in the WG. The were indeed asked repeatedly. > > > > > > A review of the number of real and potential claims held by the IGO/NGO groups is telling based upon the number of UDRP/formal litigation matters actually having been filed over the past 20+ years - close to 0 statistically. Indeed there are a limited number of IGO/NGOs who have in fact brought claims in their own names - a point which notwithstanding the limited number - shows that it is not a huge issue. > > > > > > Personally speaking I see here a clear attempt at "capture" wherein the IGO/NGO crowd is - not liking what was developed - trying to achieve an end-run. > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. > > > > > > Law.es <http://law.es/> > > > > > > Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) > > > > > > Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) > > > Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) > > > > > > Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 > > > > > > Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 > > > > > > Skype: Prk-Spain > > > > > > email: Paul(a)law.es > > > > > > > > > > > > THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF > > > AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED > > > WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN > > > ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH > > > AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL > > > ADVICE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/29/18, 3:01 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Drazek, Keith via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Mr. Kirikos, > > > > > > I have received your email and forwarded it to the full GNSO Council list. > > > > > > No decisions were made by the Council during our meeting today. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Keith Drazek > > > GNSO Chair > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 2:01 AM > > > To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com; Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com; mpsilvavalent(a)gmail.com > > > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response to "Procedural options for > > > IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP" email sent to GNSO Council mailing > > > list > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > [please forward this email to the rest of GNSO Council] > > > > > > On the eve of the November 29, 2018 12:00 UTC GSNO Council meeting (not observing the usual 10 day advanced notice rule for documents), ICANN staff sent various documents related to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP to the GNSO Council mailing list: > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-November/022091.html > > > > > > Given the limited time to review it, I can't comment on all of it at this time. However, it once again appears to present a false and one-sided view of the work of the PDP working group, in an attempt to undermine its recommendations. Furthermore, it excludes important information. > > > > > > 1. In the 11 page document titled "SUMMARY PAPER: STATUS, ISSUES & NEXT STEPS FOR THE IGO-INGO CURATIVE RIGHTS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > > > (PDP) FINAL REPORT", the first option (on page 2), namely engaging in a facilitated discussion with the GAC, ignores the fact that the the working group already fully considered the input that was provided by the IGOs (i.e. "GAC" is really just a handful of IGOs within the GAC, i.e. OECD & WIPO). Furthermore, page 2 ignores the fact that registrants subject to a UDRP or URS would also be parties who are "most affected" by recommendations. > > > > > > In addition, there **already*** was a "small group" convened with IGO participation, see: > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ > > > > > > which had the participation of WIPO, OECD, and both co-chairs (at the time, before Phil Corwin resigned in 2018) of the IGO PDP, among others. Indeed, the author of the 11 page document (ICANN Staff member Mary Wong, as per the metadata of the PDF) was the first person who posted on that mailing list: > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-January/0000 > > > 00.html > > > > > > "This list has been created as a result of the conference call of 20 December 2016 among representatives of the ICANN Board, GAC and GNSO. > > > As a participant on that call, you have been automatically subscribed to this list, which is intended for group discussion of the proposal for a facilitated dialogue between the GAC and the GNSO, to resolve the outstanding issues on protections for IGO acronyms, the names of the Red Cross National Societies, and certain names and acronyms of the international Red Cross movement." > > > > > > IGOs have had their say, numerous times. All that another "facilitated dialogue" would do is attempt to mislead and misinform folks who are not subject matter experts, attempt to re-argue their past failed arguments, and furthermore exclude those who actually fully understand all the issues (i.e. the current members of the PDP working group who invested 4 years of research and analysis on the topic to come up with their consensus recommendations). IGOs have nothing new to say that hasn't already been said. > > > > > > 2. For option 5 (page 4) the document mentions concerns about "lack of representation", "differences between leadership and members", and "dominance by a specific group". Frankly, those are frivolous arguments that have been raised at a late date by those who failed to convince the rest of the working group as to the merits of their positions. One should immediately notice that those arguments are being made only with regards to Recommendation #5 -- if there truly was "capture", then certainly Recommendations #1 through #4 would similarly be impacted by the asserted "lack of representation", etc. > > > Furthermore, the current co-chair and the former co-chair had every opportunity, by Section 3.2 of the working group guidelines, to determine whether "capture" had occurred, but not once did they claim it during the PDP: > > > > > > "The Chair, in cooperation with the Secretariat and ICANN Staff, is continually expected to assess whether the WG has sufficiently broad representation, and if not, which groups should be approached to encourage participation. Similarly, if the Chair is of the opinion that there is over-representation to the point of capture, he/she should inform the Chartering Organization." > > > > > > The assertions of "capture" began only *after* the co-chairs found themselves to be in a small minority and opposed to the consensus that the rest of the working group successfully achieved. After the first anonymous and non-transparent poll had been conducted in October 2017 which was consistent with the option favoured by the co-chairs, the co-chairs expressed no concerns whatsoever about "capture". It was only long afterwards, after the fully transparent procedures (as a result of my first Section 3.7 appeal) established and documented that the co-chairs were in fact in a small minority, and the consensus was for an option other than that supported by the then co-chairs, that the "capture" argument was put forth (as an attempt to undermine the Final Report's conclusions). > > > > > > Lastly, take a look at the documented positions and constituencies of each working group member who actually participated in the Consensus Call (as of June 12, 2018): > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJ > > > JPLIsAwTFj-0i3FsammN5q-iD1QCQ_EMBC8LTzZ30TGvrf6Fw_mUvlnHa9DV9/pubh > > > tml > > > > > > (which wasn't put into the final report; later deliberations solidified the actual consensus levels as reported in the final report, as text was tweaked to satisfy various concerns that had been > > > expressed) > > > > > > As was properly noted in the letter to the ICANN Board of August 16, 2018: > > > > > > > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/igo-ingo-wg-t > > > o-icann-board-16aug18-en.pdf > > > > > > the working group had a broad cross-section of members from various constituencies. It's preposterous to suggest, for example, that David Maher and Crystal Ondo (both of the Registries Stakeholder Group, same as Phil Corwin) or Reg Levy (of the Registrars Stakeholders Group) were involved in a "capture" somehow, in supporting Recommendation #5 (Option #1). I can't speak for them, but presumably they made their best assessment of the facts and analysis, and supported the recommendations that were found to be best, just like every other member of the PDP. Those claiming "capture" should explain how 2 members of the Registries Stakeholders Group (same constituency as Phil Corwin) and 1 member of the Registrars Stakeholders Group were part of the consensus that is being attacked by some. It's obvious that they can't do this, completely destroying the credibility of those claiming "capture". Instead, they try to smear the group as a while with unsupportable claims. If there really was voting in "blocs", explain why both Reg Levy and myself happened to be *opposed* to Recommendation #4 (being in a minority on that one, against the > > > consensus) -- this too is not consistent with "capture" (i.e. it's clear people made their own decisions). > > > > > > 3. It's no secret that I've been highly critical of ICANN staff in this PDP. The bottom of page 6 is yet another example of misinformation coming from ICANN Staff. The "Notes on #1" asserts that I (without naming me) "proposed what became Recommendation #5" -- that is a complete falsehood. In fact, it was Paul Keating who was the one who had first proposed Option #1 (which became the consensus Recommendation #5), back when the matter initially arose, as fully documented on July 21, 2016, starting on page 14: > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60491579/transcri > > > pt%20IGO%20INGO%2021%20July%202016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate= > > > 1469203657000&api=v2 > > > > > > Paul Keating: "But to state emphatically in a part of the UDRP > > > policy that if there is subsequent litigation following a UDRP, in > > > which the IGO requests and is granted or the court on its own > > > grants immunity, then ****the UDRP decision itself should become a > > > nullity.***** > > > > > > And the reason is, is because otherwise you're leaving a respondent with no ability to challenge a contractually appointed panel. The quality of which is not always very good. I mean, if you look at the statistics for post-UDRP litigation, the vast majority of them are overturned. And I think that to leave a respondent solely with the UDRP as their only means of addressing the issue and nothing else, I think that that’s patently unfair to the respondent. > > > > > > So I think that the proper choice is to place the decision at > > > the level of the IGO. If they wish to proceed with the UDRP > > > they're running the risk of waiver of their immunity claim. If > > > they win and they subsequently argue immunity, and are granted > > > immunity, ****then the UDRP decision becomes a nullity.*****" > > > (emphasis added) > > > > > > Phil Corwin (now on page 15): "Yes, thanks for that input, Paul. Let me just ask - and I think what you put forward should be discussed by the group as we move toward report and recommendations. If that - let’ > > > say there’s a decision, it goes against the registrant in the UDRP. > > > Transfer is ordered. Registrant files in a court of mutual > > > jurisdiction. IGO goes into that court and says they - we > > > shouldn’t be here, we’re immune. Court agrees with them, would the > > > IGO then - then the - ****under your scenario, the UDRP decision > > > is also vitiated.****" (emphasis added) > > > > > > So, initially it was being called "nullification", and I believe Phil Corwin was the first one to use the term "vitiate." Regardless, it was Paul Keating's proposal, not mine. > > > > > > This history is further documented by the Adobe Connect Chat Room Transcript for the following week's call PDP call (July 28, 2016): > > > > > > > > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2016-July/000552.h > > > tml > > > > > > where we're chatting back and forth and we're using the term "nullification", I pointed out expressly that it was Paul Keating's > > > idea: > > > > > > "George Kirikos:For suggestion #1 (which I don't favour; I'm in the "status quo + greater education + assignment camp), nullification should take place regardless when the court case is brough (since a court case can be brought at any time, even before the UDRP decision is rendered). > > > George Kirikos:*brough = brought > > > Mary Wong:Options A through D are more fully detailed in Prof Swaine's legal memo. > > > Mary Wong:Option E brings us back to the standing issue - Phil provided a clarification last week that this, too, is an option to consider. > > > Mary Wong:@George, but this would be a case filed by the losing respondent, right? > > > Mary Wong:Against a UDRP decision in favor of the IGO. > > > George Kirikos:Mary: it would be filed during the UDRP, before the panel has deemed the respondent a "loser" > > > George Kirikos:A court case can be initiated at any time, even before the panel has made a decision. > > > Mary Wong:Understood, but I had thought that the "nullification" > > > point referred to vitiating the UDRP decision. > > > George Kirikos:(that's how my company did it for the PUPA.com domain name dispute; Tucows has done the same several times, as have others) > > > Mary Wong:Because, if there hasn't yet been a panel decision, there would not be a result to nullify. > > > George Kirikos:Right, it would be nullified, even if the respondent didn't wait for the panel to reach a decision (i.e. they might make an adverse decision later, after the court case is brought). > > > George Kirikos:Some panels will terminate, to defer to the courts. > > > Some panels will still render a decision, though. > > > George Kirikos:I didn't propose it -- Paul Keating did." > > > > > > The correct attribution (to Paul Keating) is certainly known by ICANN staff, as it was pointed out before, including on November 22, 2017 on the mailing list, see: > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000 > > > 943.html > > > > > > I think ICANN Staff intentionally tried to associate Option #1 as being my idea in an attempt to undermine it, trying to link its origins to someone who is personally disliked by some members of the GNSO Council, and who would vote against it on that basis alone. > > > [Indeed, Option #1 (what is currently Recommendation #5's > > > consensus) wasn't even my personal favourite option! (Option #7 > > > was, which was unfortunately arrived at too late to be > > > considered)] > > > > > > 4. The "Note on #6" (page 10) concerning things like "dynamics" and "process challenges" is highly one-sided. In fact, the Section 3.7 appeals were meritorious, which folks would quickly realize if they actually read the background documents. The questions raised about transparency of process were 100% valid, as the anonymous voting violated the Working Group Guidelines, justifying the first section > > > 3.7 appeal. The 2nd Section 3.7 appeal was put forth to ensure we had adequate time to prepare our final report and to reach consensus, see: > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001254. > > > html > > > > > > It too was meritorious, since we finally did reach consensus on all 5 recommendations (overcoming the efforts of those who tried to manipulate the process). And, the fact that GNSO Council now wants to gain "specific insights into deliberations" (Option 6, page 4 of the > > > document) is strong evidence that the Final Report was inadequate, a point I made repeatedly in arguing for more time to add more info documenting our rationale (ICANN staff did a horrible job summarizing our debates and arguments). In fact, I personally disavowed the Final Report in July, because it wasn't up to snuff (even after I had been apparently the only one to have proofread what was submitted, as Staff delivered a draft report at a very late date with little time to review and respond): > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001379. > > > html > > > > > > "Furthermore, I do not intend to read or amend the draft Final > > > Report any longer, while this Section 3.7 appeal is in effec. I > > > appear to be the only person who has even attempted to read it and > > > improve it, yet today is 1 day before it's due! We have to stop > > > pretending that the Final Report is in good shape and ready for > > > submission, and I won't be part of that pretending any longer. > > > [I'll rely on my own words in my own minority statement] > > > > > > Specifically, I *disavow* the current draft Final Report. While I believe the Recommendations themselves have been accurately recorded, the supporting rationales and other text in that document are not in good shape yet for submission to GNSO Council." > > > > > > Any "process challenges" that GNSO Council should be concerned with should be instead be directed to the continued attempts by those opposed to the recommendations to manipulate the outcome of this PDP's work which is now in Council's hands. This manipulation has been going on for a long time, including the rushed final report (it was rushed supposedly because we were told it needed to be voted upon in July 2018; I think it was rushed instead in order to make it more easily attacked by those opposed to its conclusions). I pointed this out repeatedly, including in early July: > > > > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001385. > > > html > > > > > > when the report's recommendations weren't put to a vote like it was supposed to be, as evidenced by the motion that was presented in advance of the GNSO Council meeting that didn't include a vote. > > > > > > 5. It's crucial to have studied the origins of the UDRP, to understand Consensus Recommendation #5, yet none of what follows is in the Final Report or in subsequent documents provided to Council. > > > > > > The history of the UDRP is documented at: > > > > > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schedule-2012-02-25-en > > > > > > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/white-paper-2012-02 > > > -25-en > > > > > > "The proposals were designed to provide trademark holders with > > > the ****same rights**** they have in the physical world, to ensure > > > transparency, and to guarantee a dispute resolution mechanism > > > *****with resort to a court system.***** " (emphasis added) > > > > > > Notice the "same rights" and "with resort to a court system." It can't get much clearer than that. Recommendation #5 provides exactly that, the same rights and resort to the court system. > > > > > > The White Paper goes on to say: > > > > > > "Further, it should be clear that whatever dispute resolution > > > mechanism is put in place by the new corporation, that mechanism > > > should be directed toward disputes about cybersquatting and > > > cyberpiracy and not to settling the disputes between two parties > > > with legitimate competing interests in a particular mark. > > > ****Where legitimate competing rights are concerned, disputes are > > > rightly settled in an appropriate court.**** (emphasis added) > > > > > > Again, Recommendation #5 accomplishes that, by ensuring that it is up to the appropriate courts to decide on the merits. IGOs ignore these facts, and are happy to instead push for binding arbitration in unaccountable kangaroo arbitration panels as being "good enough" for registrants. > > > > > > The issues surrounding access to the courts for a decision on the merits was well understood at the time the UDRP was created nearly 20 years. Section 4(k) of the UDRP and the corresponding URS rules were an attempt to accomplish that, but they are not entirely effective (Recommendation #5 fixes this). > > > > > > Indeed, if one goes to the Staff report at the time: > > > > > > > > > http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/udrp-staff-report.ht > > > m > > > > > > "DNSO Recommendation 4(b): The need to address the situation > > > wherein a domain name registrant who has been unsuccessful in the > > > ADR process is effectively prevented from "appealing" the result > > > in a court due to the absence of a cause of action in contract, > > > tort, regulation, statute or constitutional right. It was noted > > > that there is an imbalance in the WIPO process in that an > > > unsuccessful complainant will always be able to judicially > > > challenge an ADR result by virtue of the jurisdiction of the > > > registry being imposed over the dispute by the WIPO Report; > > > > > > Staff Suggestion on DNSO Recommendation 4(b): The staff agrees that both registrants and challengers should have ****equal opportunities**** to "appeal" an outcome of the administrative dispute-resolution procedure. Some commentators have suggested that the DNSO-recommended proposal would afford challengers significantly superior "appeal" > > > rights. The staff notes that this result would be a clearly > > > unintended consequence of the DNSO proposal. The staff believes > > > that this concern can and should be fully addressed in the > > > implementation of the dispute-resolution policy, which should > > > explicitly negate this possibility." (emphasis added) > > > > > > The possible inability to have the access to the courts for a decision on the underlying merits due to immunity issues for IGOs was another "unintended consequence", which would be fully corrected by the Consensus Recommendation #5. > > > > > > Furthermore, to understand the development of UDRP's Section 4(k), see: > > > > > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990729.NCwga-report.html > > > > > > " The need to address the situation wherein a domain name > > > registrant who has been unsuccessful in the ADR process is effectively prevented from appealing the result in a court due to the absence of a cause of action in contract, tort, regulation, statute or constitutional right. It was noted that there is an imbalance in the WIPO process in that an unsuccessful complainant will always be able to judicially challenge an ADR result by virtue of the jurisdiction of the registry being imposed over the dispute by the WIPO Report. > > > > > > One suggested solution to this problem which WG-A agrees merits further consideration, is the requirement that a complainant enter into a contract with the registrant (or the arbitral institution in a jurisdiction that recognizes third party beneficiary agreements) as a condition of initiating ADR, that provides for consent to be sued in the jurisdiction where the registrant is ordinarily resident, and in the jurisdiction where the subject registrar is located (assuming both parties do not agree to voluntarily contract out of the right to subsequent litigation). " > > > > > > [This history was pointed out in the RPM PDP recently, see: > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html > > > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.htm > > > l ] > > > > > > So, in other words, Consensus Recommendation #5 is entirely consistent with the history and purpose of the UDRP, and fixes issues that were not anticipated correctly by the current existing policy. > > > Recommendation #5 puts both parties back in the same legal position they'd be had the UDRP/URS not taken place (which interfered with the access to the courts to render a final decision on the matter), to ensure that it's the courts that have the final say on the merits of a dispute, without interference by ICANN or its policies. It makes sure that ICANN is not granting either side any better outcome or rights from the UDRP/URS than exists in the real courts. In other words, Recommendation #5 ensures that both the IGO and the domain name registrant have the outcome determined by the courts, as was expressly desired in the development of the UDRP (which the URS is modeled on). > > > > > > Everything put forward by the IGOs, in trying to discredit the PDP's final report, is an attempt for IGOs to create a process that would give them better outcomes and better rights than exist in real national courts and under national laws. They want an uneven playing field, one that advantages themselves to the detriment of others. > > > Those attempts should be vehemently opposed (which the Consensus accomplished), as otherwise it would mean ICANN would be creating its own "new law", rather than creating policies that are consistent with > > > ***existing*** laws of nations. > > > > > > In conclusion, GNSO Council should adopt all the recommendations in the final report. > > > > > > If it requires a better explanation for the recommendations, that too can certainly be done (that's why I filed the 2nd Section 3.7 appeal!). But, that better explanation should not be done by those who've actively tried to undermine the work. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > George Kirikos > > > 416-588-0269 > > > http://www.leap.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > > > > >

3 2

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#293]
by ICANN 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

1 0

GNSO Council Liaisons to GNSO WGs - Replacement Needs
by Steve Chan 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Dear Councilors, As an action item from the Council wrap-up session, staff was to circulate a list of projects where a Council liaison is needed. From our understanding, it appears that just one effort is in imminent need of a replacement: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Keith Drazek (serving in interim basis) Of note, there was some discussion of Paul McGrady stepping down from his role with the Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP and rejoining SubPro, with Maxim Alzoba stepping into the RPMs role in his stead. However, there are several other projects that need a replacement, but are of a less urgent nature: WHOIS Procedure Implementation Advisory Group (WPIAG): Keith Drazek (with effort on hold, no urgent need, but Keith intends to step down if this effort does initiate) Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs: Susan Kawaguchi (Final Report delivered, but next steps still being determined) Thick WHOIS: Susan Kawaguchi For any Councilors considering volunteering, you will likely want to review the GNSO Council Liaison to GNSO WGs role description (here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-liaison-wg-22feb18-en.pdf) to ensure you understand your responsibilities. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

5 5

CSC Findings on PTI Performance November 2018
by Drazek, Keith 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hi all, Please find attached the PTI Customer Standing Committee’s (CSC) monthly report for November 2018. There’s a good high-level summary in the email below. Regards, Keith From: SOAC-Infoalert <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 5:45 PM To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: "ICANN-CSC(a)icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC(a)icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>> Subject: [SOAC-Infoalert] CSC Findings on PTI Performance November 2018 Dear all, On behalf of the chair of the CSC (Byron Holland), please find included following message and the latest CSC report. Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel -------------------------- 18 December 2018 Dear Community Members, As chair of the Customer Standing Committee I am providing you our November 2018 monthly findings on the performance of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). I am pleased to inform you the CSC has concluded that PTI’s overall performance over November 2018 was “Satisfactory” - PTI met the service level agreement at 98.4%. PTI missed 1 service level and that was satisfactorily explained and is not considered an indication of a performance issue. The CSC was informed of no escalations. The related PTI report to the CSC, listing the individual service level metrics along with their actual and historical performance, can be found at:https://www.iana.org/performance/csc-reports. I am also very pleased to inform you that after extensive discussions and hard work the CSC approved and adopted both the Process for Amending the IANA Naming Service Level Agreements and related procedure for Modifying the Process for Amending the IANA Naming Service Level Agreements. This is a first critical step in the process to amend the Service Levels change procedure contained in IANA Naming Function Contract. The documents can be found on the CSC wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/TIMWBg The CSC regular meeting is scheduled at or around the 15th every month, and the CSC report on the PTI performance is sent out shortly after that meeting. If you would like to be informed of upcoming meetings or receive CSC reports directly, you may want to subscribe to our announce list at https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-announce . Any comments on our reporting to you is welcome. The CSC became effective October 1, 2016. Background information on the committee along with transcripts of our meetings and other useful information can be found at https://www.icann.org/csc . Kind regards, Byron Holland Chair CSC

2 2

Motion - Nomination Mentor ICANN Fellowship Program
by Erika Mann 19 Dec '18

19 Dec '18

Dear Councilors, I am writing to follow up on the motion I submitted on Monday, December 10, for tomorrow’s Council meeting agenda: Nomination of a Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program. The SSC has reached full consensus and recommends Andrew Mack to serve in this role. Staff, can you please add Andrew Mack’s name to the motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+December… ? Kind regards, Erika Erika Mann GNSO Council erika(a)erikamann.com +32 498 121354

3 3