Thanks Nathalie! All – from an expectation management POV, please note that in the attached EMEA newsletter (13th August), the article on the IGO-INGO Report says: “On 9 July 2018, the International Governmental Organization and International Non-Governmental Organization (IGO-INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council. The Final Report contains five consensus recommendations. Since October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has issued advice on the topic of IGO identifier protections. Several inconsistencies between the GAC advice and PDP consensus recommendations have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms. The Council determined to review the PDP Final Report with a view toward facilitating the resolution of the outstanding inconsistencies between existing GAC Advice and prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections. In the meantime, the Council informed the ICANN Board and the GAC that the PDP Working Group has completed its work”. So if we are going to send it up to the Board without such resolution, I think we should consider an accompanying explanation as to why we couldn’t get there. Best to all Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 3:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council IGO INGO Curative Rights Q&A webinar recording Tuesday 9 October 2018 Dear all, Please find below the Adobe Connect recording of the GNSO Council IGO INGO Curative Rights Q&A webinar held on Tuesday 9 October 2018. The slide deck is attached to this email and all recordings and materials will be posted on the GNSO Master calendar here<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct>. Adobe connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p55e010miek/ Adobe Connect chat content: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Council webinar Q&A on Curative Rights on Tuesday 9 October 2018 at 12:00 UTC Nathalie Peregrine:This webinar is for GNSO Council members only, but an audiocast is available for other community members, details of which can be found in the top right-hand pod in the AC room. Erika Mann:Joined! Don't need the operator Nathalie. Adobe seems to be working! Erika Mann:Thank you! Nathalie Peregrine:perfect, thanks Erika Keith Drazek (RySG):Hi all! Julf Helsingius:hello all Rafik Dammak:hi all Ayden Férdeline (NCSG):Hello all Marie Pattullo:Afternoon! Tatiana Tropina:Hi all! Heather Forrest:Hi everyone - thanks very much for joining Syed Ismail Shah:Hello everyone matthew shears:Hi - apologies just in listening mode Rubens Kuhl - RySG:Hi all! Mary Wong:The reason why IGOs and INGOs are differentiated here is b/c there will need to be at least one change to the UDRP and URS if the rest of the recs are approved (esp Rec #5). Mary Wong:Rec 2 does not change the UDRP & URS standard; it just provides an additional clarification but whether a 6ter filing will be enough for standing will be a case-by-case determination for a UDRP/URS paneliest to make. Mary Wong:Because the highlighted text in Rec #5 changes the current position under UDRP and URS, taht is why Rec #1 was phrased the way it was. This will mean a change to the UDRP and URS. Mary Wong:Link to Charter (including amendments): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WG+Charter Donna Austin, RySG:I believe it has done what it was chartered to do. Pam Little, RrSG:I agree with Donna Rafik Dammak:yes same understanding Philippe Fouquart:+1 Mary Wong:The 2 minority statements note perceived problems with Rec #5 that may be relevant to your consideration of this question (though it is two members' views). Marie Pattullo:Agree that Rec 5 may be divisive but that’s as to result; the Charter does seem to have been followed. Mary Wong:Section 3.7 can be reviewed here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc... Marie Pattullo:Next steps: do we think the balance of 1 member’s concerns one the one hand and the rest of the WG, and thus the timeline for the community, is something we need to address in PDP 3.0? Marie Pattullo:*on Keith Drazek (RySG):Thanks Mary. I think the group dynamics is a reasonable consideration for Council in assessing the policy recommendations and process by which they were reached. Keith Drazek (RySG):Full disclosure: Phil Corwin is a current colleague of mine at Verisign. He was not at Verisign during the bulk of this PDP WG. Mary Wong:This is just an except from the most relevant and recent GAC advice. There has been a consistent theme of GAC advice on this topic dating back to 2012 or 2013. Mary Wong:*excerpt Mary Wong:The GAC also provided comments to the Initial Report, as did quite a few IGOs. There was also the IGO Small Group Proposal that the Board referred to the WG in late 2016. Rubens Kuhl - RySG:Is Rec. 5 the only one with minority statements > Rubens Kuhl - RySG:? Mary Wong:Specifically, yes, Rubens. Avri Doria:Does the report contain repsonses to all of the GAC advice. I quickly read the report when it came out, but do not remember. Mary Wong:@Avri, not specifically. Typically these are documented during the WG meetings where the advice and comments were addressed. Mary Wong:But there is a section in the Final Report that summarizes how the WG considered the GAC advice and Small Group Proposal. Avri Doria:ok, thanks Marie Pattullo:We of course need to give due weight to GAC advice, but it is unfortunate that the small group chose to work in parallel and not favour integration with the WG. Keith Drazek (RySG):Was the "small group" dynamic a potential process concern? Rubens Kuhl - RySG:I will float a suggestion that even I am not fully convinced, but as an starting point. Rafik Dammak:we cannot prevent the GAC having small groups but that doesnt seem enabling them to participate in PDP directly Heather Forrest:Indeed, thanks Mary -the history is that this PDP is the result of a previous PDP recommending its formation Rubens Kuhl - RySG:For the council to consider that Rec.5 decision process, considering the 3.7 requests and minority statements, might be tainted; so, to replace the Rec.5 decision from its original options, using a vote. Regardless of GAC advice or not, only looking at substance. Keith Drazek (RySG):Thanks Mary, that's helpful context. Marie Pattullo:Agree Rafik and we'd never want to try to shut down any discussion - but it would help us all to have more integration before we get to the final recommendations stage. Rubens Kuhl - RySG:While it's unfortunate that those recs might go against GAC advice, this shouldn't be a factor for council's decision. Heather Forrest:Facilitated dialogue I believe was Copenhagen and it resulted in the reopening of RC Mary Wong:@Heather, yes Mary Wong:The Small Group Proposal was sent to the GNSO in Oct or Nov 2016, so it was able to be considered before the Initial REport was finalized for public comment. Keith Drazek (RySG):Thanks Donna, much appreciated. Mary Wong:I've pasted the GAC advice relating to the Small Group Proposal and the WG in the Notes pod on the right. Donna Austin, RySG:I agree with Heather: Continued participation in any PDP WG is challenging becuase of the length of time these efforts take. Julf Helsingius:And most GAC members don't engage between ICANN meetings Avri Doria:Mary, was recommendation III done. IS the results of this also considered in the report? Mary Wong:GAC advice you mean, Avri? Avri Doria:yes, III from advice printed in notes Ayden Férdeline (NCSG):i will need to drop off this call shortly, as the EPDP has a call beginning in 8 minutes time Mary Wong:Yes, the WG discussed GAC advice - but it was already fairly clear that the WG generally did not and would not favor a separate dispute resolution process anyway. Avri Doria:thanks Donna Austin, RySG:But Mary, this was discussed by the WG and was consciously aware that was the consequence? Rafik Dammak:thanks all Keith Drazek (RySG):Thanks Heather Rafik Dammak:one more call to go :) Syed Ismail Shah:Thank you all Paul McGrady:Thanks all! Marie Pattullo:Thanks everyone. matthew shears:Thanks! Philippe Fouquart:Thanks Heather, thanks all, safe travels. Julf Helsingius:EPDP, here we come... Thank you! Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine@icann.org <nathalie.peregrine@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/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...> Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine@icann.org <nathalie.peregrine@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/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>