November 2014 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 23 October at 12.00 UTC (new date) Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 23 October or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

2 2

Policy staff Retreat 1 - 5 December 2014
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 28, 2014

Nov. 28, 2014

Dear all, Policy staff will be on a their annual training retreat from the 1st to the 5th December 2014. Whilst minimum coverage of conference calls will be provided, please expect delays regarding email response time. If you do have an urgent request, please mark URGENT in the email title, so we can treat it as a matter of priority. We thank you for your understanding. Kind regards Nathalie GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Updates from the GNSO Council meeting
by Petter Rindforth Nov. 21, 2014

Nov. 21, 2014

Dear All, See below the notes from the latest GNSO Council meeting, on topics of interest for our WG: TheCouncil confirmed the following Council Liaison:Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs PDP –Susan Kawaguchi(BC) 7.Since the conclusion earlier this year of thePDPexamining protections for the identifiers of the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC), International Olympic Committee, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) and International Governmental Organizations (IGOs), the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) of the ICANN Board has been working with theGACto address GAC concerns that certain of the PDP recommendations—specifically with respect to IGO acronyms and RCRC national society names—were not adequate.The GNSO Council sent a letter earlier this year seeking an update from NGPC on the status of those ongoing negotiations. The NGPC has not yet responded to the Council’s letter, but ICANN Staff assured the Council that the NGPC is aware of its outstanding obligation to respond and will do so in due course. Following the Los Angeles ICANN meeting, theIGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Grouptransmitted a letter totheGNSO Liaison to the GAC, requesting that he engage with the GAC on certain questions raised by the GAC’s Los Angeles Communiqué. In the Communiqué, the GAC advised the ICANN Board that any curative rights process developed by this PDP Working Group “should be at no or nominal cost to IGOs” and that in developing an appropriate curative rights mechanism “the UDRP should not be amended.” These requests are at some variance with the directives contained in the Working Group Charter, and the letter therefore requests that the Liaison engage in dialogue with the GAC regarding this matter and to encourage direct engagement by interested GAC members in the PDP. The Liaison is awaiting further instructions from the Council as to how to proceed. Best regards, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

2 1

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 19 November 2014 at 1700 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Dear All, Please note that there will be NO meeting next week, the WG will resume meetings on the 3rd December 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 at 1700 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141119-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Mason Cole – RySG Gary Campbell – GAC David Healsley - IPC Kristine Dorrain- Individual Paul Tattersfield – Individual David Maher – RySG Paul Keating – NCUC Imran Ahmed Shah – NCUC Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Lori Schulman – NPOC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Berry Cobb Amy Bivins Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 19 November 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 19th November 2014 George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone Gary Campbell:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Hi Paul & Gary. How are you today? Gary Campbell:I am great George George Kirikos:Glad to hear it, Gary. Paul Tattersfield:Good George, thanks you? Is it cold yet in Canada? George Kirikos:It's freeezzzzinnnnggggg. Brrrrr. We have had snow here for the last couple of days. George Kirikos:Not as bad as Buffalo, NY, though. Val Sherman:David Heasley is also on the line Paul Keating:Today's weather in Barcelona is mostely dark but scattered britghtness is expected in about 12 hours :-) George Kirikos:I think Gary has us all beat -- in Jamaica! :-) Gary Campbell:lol @ George Nathalie Peregrine:@ Val, David has been noted for attendance. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Pre-apologies: I'm going to need to leave the call in 1/2 hour. Imran Ahmed Shah:Hi Everyone! George Kirikos:Welcome, Imran. Imran Ahmed Shah:But I think the GAC representative is to be assigned by the GAC itself. Mason Cole:Correct, Mary Imran Ahmed Shah:Okay, Thanks Marry Gary Campbell:IMran is correct Mary Wong:@Gary, please feel free to let Mason and us know if you have advice on how we can best proceed. Gary Campbell:@Mary and will do Gary Campbell:You need to write Thomas Schneider the GAC Chair and ask for GAC representation George Kirikos:On a formatting note, the questions should perhaps be set apart separately (and maybe be numbered), instead of just being in bold within the text of a letter. Mason Cole:all, i need to sign off the call. i will follow up with any action items beyond the communication to the GAC George Kirikos:e..g. Q1 "What is....", Q2. "What would be the basis, etc. George Kirikos:Usually the immunity is to defend a suit. But, the UDRP/URS is an "initiating" action, where the IGO is bringing the dispute. That's really an express waiver, when used as a "sword". Mary Wong:@George, yes, my understanding is that this is a point the IGOs are concerned about on this issue. George Kirikos:But, since the IGOs face the same issues when enforcing their Article 6ter marks offline, the question then becomes "what's different in the online world?" Imran Ahmed Shah:+ 1 George. Imran Ahmed Shah:I also agree that specific questions should be asked. And I suggest that we ask them to elaborate their requirements and concern specifically:do they like to reserve:a. the full name string and similarity strings of the domain name related to IGOb. the abbreviations of the full name string and similarity string of the domain name related to IGO Mary Wong:@Imran, I'm afraid that the issue of reserving namse is outside the scope of this WG. That was dealt with by the previous IGO WG. Imran Ahmed Shah:a. the full name string and similarity strings of the domain name related to IGO Imran Ahmed Shah:b. the abbreviations of the full name string and similarity string of the domain name related to IGO Imran Ahmed Shah:c. or anything in the string they could claim as a similar string George Kirikos:Maybe January 6? Val Sherman:+ Kathy George Kirikos:So we have the input before the January 7th call? George Kirikos:(if we have one on Jan 7) George Kirikos:Although, perhaps that won't work, looking at the calendar (Jan 1 = Thursday) Paul Keating:9th is fine Imran Ahmed Shah:I also agree for 9 George Kirikos:9th is ok. Philip Corwin:ok on January 9 Kathy Kleiman:9th gives everyone a week to finalize... Kathy Kleiman:that's good! Kathy Kleiman:great, reminders are good Paul Keating:@Peter, how extensive is this problem? How many IGOs have complained? Kathy Kleiman:@Paul - I have the same question Paul Keating:so we may be solving a problem that is NOT a preoblem? George Kirikos:Paul: No, we're asked to investigate *whether* there should be something done. George Kirikos:i.e. No solution, if we decide there's no real problem. Imran Ahmed Shah:@Mary I could not understand your reply to my points, my points were related to PDP process for UDRP for the IGOs. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks everyone, I need to run. Talk to you later. Paul Keating:@tyhank you. I am sorry but I have to go to a meeting. Mary Wong:@Imran, sorry if I mistook your meaning. I think that is one of the questions our WG is posing to the IGO small group in that case. Imran Ahmed Shah:in order to understand their concern perticularly, we have to dig further Kathy Kleiman:Agree with Phil Mary Wong:Thanks for the guidance! George Kirikos:With the time difference, 9 am in Singapore on Friday appears to be around 8 pm Eastern time on Thursday, for those planning to participate remotely. Imran Ahmed Shah:@Marry should our WG members will be supported for F2F meeting? Val Sherman:Thanks, George! Imran Ahmed Shah:@Mary what about the Travel Support? Kathy Kleiman:David Cake and Kathy Kleiman will be participating for NCSG George Kirikos:Will any of those in the IGO subgroup be at the Singapore F2F? George Kirikos:(since some of them go to the ICANN meetings; if their hotel stay can be extended by a day, it might be valuable) Mary Wong:@Imran, I believe that travel support is allocated via your Stakeholder Group or Constituency. Val Sherman:That sounds like a good idea, Mary George Kirikos:We'll want to make sure that our public session doesn't conflict with other sessions that IGOs might be planning to attend. Mary Wong:@George, yep, that's always the challenge :( Imran Ahmed Shah:@Mary Thanks George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a great day! Kathy Kleiman:Tx you, Petter, and All! Philip Corwin:Bye--and have a good Thanksgiving if you are in the USA Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye everyonr Val Sherman:Thanks all!

1 0

Agenda and draft document for WG call on Wednesday 19 November
by Mary Wong Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for the next WG call on Wednesday 19 November, to be chaired by Petter: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Updates on Action Items from the last WG call (staff/Mason Cole) 3. Discussion of request for input from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (required by the PDP Manual), and from other SO/ACs (suggested/encouraged in the PDP Manual) 4. Next steps Please also find attached a draft letter for discussion under Agenda Item #3. Please note that this draft was prepared by staff with a view toward facilitating the WG¹s discussion on the topic. It has not yet been reviewed by the WG co-chairs, who may have their own suggestions and views that they will share with the group. Please feel free also to share your thoughts and comments. As usual, the agenda and document have also been uploaded to the WG wiki for your easy reference: https://community.icann.org/x/WjjxAg. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

3 3

Question about WG facilitated session in Singapore (ICANN52)
by Mary Wong Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Dear WG members, We are beginning to work with the ICANN Meetings Team to put together the schedule for the upcoming ICANN52 Meeting in Singapore, in February 2015. As you will recall, our WG has been selected by the GNSO Council as the second WG to participate in the Council¹s pilot project for facilitating successful WG outcomes, following the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG¹s positive experience in Los Angeles last month. I am writing now to find out how many, and which, WG members intend to participate in the Singapore full-day, face-to-face facilitated session, to be held immediately following the end of the ICANN Meeting, on Friday 13 February 2015. This will permit the organizers to secure the most appropriate meeting room space, among other arrangements. Please note that WG members who require ICANN travel funding in order to be at the Singapore meeting will have to have their travel approved by their respective GNSO Stakeholder Group or other ICANN SO/AC. We will be writing separately to each SG/SO/AC Chair to inform them of the Friday session, and request that they nominate members who are active WG participants for the available slots. As a reminder, each GNSO Stakeholder Group may nominate up to 6 active WG members, and funding for this specific initiative is limited to one hotel night each (for 6 members) or a maximum of two nights (if fewer than 6). As such, a participant¹s airfare and additional accommodation costs will have to be funded from each SG¹s general travel allocations or other sources. For those who are not able to join the meeting in person, remote participation facilities will be available, and the facilitators will be briefed to ensure that remote participants are as actively involved as those who will be present in person. Please let me know if you plan to attend (subject to your obtaining the necessary travel/funding approval, if applicable) as soon as possible. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

10 10

Notes and action items from the WG call today
by Mary Wong Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Dear WG members, Please find attached the staff notes and action items from the WG call today for your review, with view toward continuing discussions on our chartered tasks next week. The notes reflect that as a result of extensive WG discussions, both on the mailing list and on the WG calls, the WG will proceed to include only IGOs in its discussions going forward. We will revert with any additional information we can gather as soon as possible Paul K., we have noted your request to trace the scholarly articles you had included in one of your earlier emails as well, and will endeavor to locate those sources as well. Do note also that, pending feedback from the GAC, IGOs or the GNSO Council, please note that the WG call scheduled for Wednesday 26 November will be canceled; however, the call scheduled for next week, Wednesday 19 November, will go ahead as planned). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about WG facilitated session in Singapore (ICANN52)
by Paul Keating Nov. 18, 2014

Nov. 18, 2014

I am also planning on being present. Alao if there is any funding available i would appreciate being considered. Sincerely Paul Keating -------- Original message From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dorrain, Kristine Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 10:59 AM To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about WG facilitated session in Singapore (ICANN52) I will not be attending in person in Singapore this time. I am planning to participate remotely. Best, Kristine From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:18 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about WG facilitated session in Singapore (ICANN52) Dear WG members, We are beginning to work with the ICANN Meetings Team to put together the schedule for the upcoming ICANN52 Meeting in Singapore, in February 2015. As you will recall, our WG has been selected by the GNSO Council as the second WG to participate in the Council’s pilot project for facilitating successful WG outcomes, following the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG’s positive experience in Los Angeles last month. I am writing now to find out how many, and which, WG members intend to participate in the Singapore full-day, face-to-face facilitated session, to be held immediately following the end of the ICANN Meeting, on Friday 13 February 2015. This will permit the organizers to secure the most appropriate meeting room space, among other arrangements. Please note that WG members who require ICANN travel funding in order to be at the Singapore meeting will have to have their travel approved by their respective GNSO Stakeholder Group or other ICANN SO/AC. We will be writing separately to each SG/SO/AC Chair to inform them of the Friday session, and request that they nominate members who are active WG participants for the available slots. As a reminder, each GNSO Stakeholder Group may nominate up to 6 active WG members, and funding for this specific initiative is limited to one hotel night each (for 6 members) or a maximum of two nights (if fewer than 6). As such, a participant’s airfare and additional accommodation costs will have to be funded from each SG’s general travel allocations or other sources. For those who are not able to join the meeting in person, remote participation facilities will be available, and the facilitators will be briefed to ensure that remote participants are as actively involved as those who will be present in person. Please let me know if you plan to attend (subject to your obtaining the necessary travel/funding approval, if applicable) as soon as possible. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8526 - Release Date: 11/07/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

With updated attendance: MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 1700 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 1700 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141112-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Mason Cole – RySG Lori Schulman – NPOC Gary Campbell – GAC Alexander Lerman – no SOI David Healsley - IPC Jay Chapman – Individual David Cake – NCUC Nat Cohen - BC David Maher – RySG Apologies: Kristine Dorrain- Individual Paul Tattersfield - Individual ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 12 November 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 12th November 2014 Gary Campbell:Hi Jay, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Gary and Jay! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Val Sherman:Hello all George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Jay Chapman:Hi Everyone! Alexander Lerman:Greetings all Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Lori Schulman has also joined the call Gary Campbell:Greg you have your hand up Gary Campbell:George rather George Kirikos:Right. I think that's what Paul's point was -- for the 3 major issues, i.e. having a TM, costs, and mutual jurisdiction, IGOs aren't necessarily 'special' either. George Kirikos:And so, Paul was trying to say that there should be an overall principle involved, rather than different strokes for different folks.... George Kirikos:It's nice to have you on today's call, Gary (Gary's with the GAC). Gary Campbell:Thanks George George Kirikos:Thanks Jim. Lori Schulman:I agree that we should focus on IGO's Jay Chapman:Agree with you, Phil George Kirikos:Yes, I think it makes sense to focus on IGOs, as the obstacles for INGOs don't seem different from other organizations. George Kirikos:http://www.state.gov/s/l/38648.htm Mary Wong:We are uploading it to the chat room George Kirikos:A private action, indeed. So, the 'mutual jurisdiction/immunity' issue exists in the normal course of enforcement. Nathalie Peregrine:Nat Cohen has joined the call Nat Cohen:Hi everyone. Sorry for joining late. George Kirikos:Welcome, Nat. Nat Cohen:Hi George Jay Chapman:Agree, Phil George Kirikos:I have to always correct myself when I say "real world" -- I meant "offline" world, since the "online" world is definitely real! :) Mary Wong:@George, :) George Kirikos:Has that IGO coaltion been created yet? George Kirikos:(i.e. we talked about sending out an invitation to all the IGO observers to the GAC) Petter Rindforth:I fully support that, as a necessary step to move on Mary Wong:@George, staf has that as an action item to take back to the Council George Kirikos:lol I see Mary had to backspace/delete "real world" too ... :-) Mary Wong:LOL - I did!!!! George Kirikos:Registrant can even initiate a court filing during the UDRP itself. George Kirikos:Does the General Counsel have access to Westlaw or other databases? George Kirikos:(i.e. to do a text search on court cases involving 6ter) Mary Wong:@George, I don't know (I wish I still did! :) George Kirikos:CanLII.org is a free Canadian court ruling database, but I didn't find much. Lori Schulman:I think that Google Scholar is free for case law research too. George Kirikos:Good point, Lori. Lori Schulman::) George Kirikos:unifem.com is still not owned by the IGO. Lori Schulman:In my experience IGO's and NGO's do not enforce in the same way as the Fortune 500. George Kirikos:Only 1 match in Google Scholar for 6ter. Lori Schulman:It's surprising what they don't own. George Kirikos:(for the Federal Courts) Petter Rindforth:Agree Lori Schulman:When I say enforce, I mean in the name space. Mary Wong:In my past life as an academic, Google Scholar wasn't very comprehensive or useful :( George Kirikos:Yes, the paid databases are the place to check.. $$$$ Lori Schulman:Lexis requires a monthly subscription. It is not pay as you go as in the past. You need a subscription. My organization does not have one...unfortunately. George Kirikos 2:Adobe froze. Petter Rindforth:Good reason to skip that date George Kirikos:Anyone else having Adobe issues? Keeps freezing up. George Kirikos:Good to skip that date. I'd also skip December 24, 2014. Nathalie Peregrine:@ George, my AC seems fine. George Kirikos:(if we're sticking to Wednesdays) Jay Chapman:agree with George, might add 12/31 as well Lori Schulman:This is my second Adobe call today and it's been wonky all day especially the mobile app. Nathalie Peregrine:{Please use Firefox and keep it updated as much as possible as this does tend to erase bugs George Kirikos:It's been stable other days. First time it has ever froze up on me, in many uses. Nathalie Peregrine:Update can be found here: • Open your Firefox Web Browser and navigate to the following URL:• https://arcps.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm• On Step #4 of the Test – Please select “Install Add-in” Or “Update Add-in” Alexander Lerman:Thanks all George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a great day! Jay Chapman:Thanks, Everyone. Goodbye! Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 1700 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 at 1700 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141112-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Mason Cole – RySG Lori Schulman – NPOC Gary Campbell – GAC Alexander Lerman – no SOI David Healsley - IPC Jay Chapman – Individual David Cake – NCUC Nat Cohen - BC Apologies: Kristine Dorrain- Individual Paul Tattersfield - Individual ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 12 November 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 12th November 2014 Gary Campbell:Hi Jay, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Gary and Jay! Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Val Sherman:Hello all George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Jay Chapman:Hi Everyone! Alexander Lerman:Greetings all Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Lori Schulman has also joined the call Gary Campbell:Greg you have your hand up Gary Campbell:George rather George Kirikos:Right. I think that's what Paul's point was -- for the 3 major issues, i.e. having a TM, costs, and mutual jurisdiction, IGOs aren't necessarily 'special' either. George Kirikos:And so, Paul was trying to say that there should be an overall principle involved, rather than different strokes for different folks.... George Kirikos:It's nice to have you on today's call, Gary (Gary's with the GAC). Gary Campbell:Thanks George George Kirikos:Thanks Jim. Lori Schulman:I agree that we should focus on IGO's Jay Chapman:Agree with you, Phil George Kirikos:Yes, I think it makes sense to focus on IGOs, as the obstacles for INGOs don't seem different from other organizations. George Kirikos:http://www.state.gov/s/l/38648.htm Mary Wong:We are uploading it to the chat room George Kirikos:A private action, indeed. So, the 'mutual jurisdiction/immunity' issue exists in the normal course of enforcement. Nathalie Peregrine:Nat Cohen has joined the call Nat Cohen:Hi everyone. Sorry for joining late. George Kirikos:Welcome, Nat. Nat Cohen:Hi George Jay Chapman:Agree, Phil George Kirikos:I have to always correct myself when I say "real world" -- I meant "offline" world, since the "online" world is definitely real! :) Mary Wong:@George, :) George Kirikos:Has that IGO coaltion been created yet? George Kirikos:(i.e. we talked about sending out an invitation to all the IGO observers to the GAC) Petter Rindforth:I fully support that, as a necessary step to move on Mary Wong:@George, staf has that as an action item to take back to the Council George Kirikos:lol I see Mary had to backspace/delete "real world" too ... :-) Mary Wong:LOL - I did!!!! George Kirikos:Registrant can even initiate a court filing during the UDRP itself. George Kirikos:Does the General Counsel have access to Westlaw or other databases? George Kirikos:(i.e. to do a text search on court cases involving 6ter) Mary Wong:@George, I don't know (I wish I still did! :) George Kirikos:CanLII.org is a free Canadian court ruling database, but I didn't find much. Lori Schulman:I think that Google Scholar is free for case law research too. George Kirikos:Good point, Lori. Lori Schulman::) George Kirikos:unifem.com is still not owned by the IGO. Lori Schulman:In my experience IGO's and NGO's do not enforce in the same way as the Fortune 500. George Kirikos:Only 1 match in Google Scholar for 6ter. Lori Schulman:It's surprising what they don't own. George Kirikos:(for the Federal Courts) Petter Rindforth:Agree Lori Schulman:When I say enforce, I mean in the name space. Mary Wong:In my past life as an academic, Google Scholar wasn't very comprehensive or useful :( George Kirikos:Yes, the paid databases are the place to check.. $$$$ Lori Schulman:Lexis requires a monthly subscription. It is not pay as you go as in the past. You need a subscription. My organization does not have one...unfortunately. George Kirikos 2:Adobe froze. Petter Rindforth:Good reason to skip that date George Kirikos:Anyone else having Adobe issues? Keeps freezing up. George Kirikos:Good to skip that date. I'd also skip December 24, 2014. Nathalie Peregrine:@ George, my AC seems fine. George Kirikos:(if we're sticking to Wednesdays) Jay Chapman:agree with George, might add 12/31 as well Lori Schulman:This is my second Adobe call today and it's been wonky all day especially the mobile app. Nathalie Peregrine:{Please use Firefox and keep it updated as much as possible as this does tend to erase bugs George Kirikos:It's been stable other days. First time it has ever froze up on me, in many uses. Nathalie Peregrine:Update can be found here: • Open your Firefox Web Browser and navigate to the following URL:• https://arcps.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm• On Step #4 of the Test – Please select “Install Add-in” Or “Update Add-in” Alexander Lerman:Thanks all George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a great day! Jay Chapman:Thanks, Everyone. Goodbye! Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

Agenda for WG call today
by Mary Wong Nov. 12, 2014

Nov. 12, 2014

Dear WG members, Here is the agenda for our WG meeting today at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Continue deliberations on: (a) potentially differentiating between IGOs and INGOs; and (b) potentially differentiating the Red Cross and IOC from other INGOs 3. Commence deliberations on the next Work Plan/Charter question: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings² (if time permits) 4. Next steps Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

Article 6ter and Enforcement -- US position
by George Kirikos Nov. 11, 2014

Nov. 11, 2014

Hi folks, In doing some research, I found a very interesting and informative telegram on the US State Department website: http://www.state.gov/s/l/38648.htm I think it's important enough to reproduce in full below: ------ start telegram ----------- 26. U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Note on the Enforcement of Obligations under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (June 2002) June 07, 2002 NotesTele UNCLASSIFIED TELEGRAM To: USMISSION USUN N Y - PRIORITY Origin: L From: SECSTATE WASHDC (STATE 110717 - PRIORITY) TAGS: OFDP Captions: None Subject: UNIFEM"/PARIS CONVENTION REPLY TO CORELL Ref: None 1. This is an action message. USUN is requested to send the note in para 2 to the UN Legal Counsel in response to his inquiry regarding the domain name registration for an INTERNET site. 2. begin text. The (Mission) (Permanent Representative of) the United States to the United Nations refers to the December 28, 2001, note from the Legal Counsel of the United Nations regarding the domain name registration for an INTERNET site. In the United States' note of February XX, 2002, the United States indicated that it would explore further with relevant agencies the obligations of the United States under article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Having now done so, the United States now provides the following additional response. While practice on implementation of article titer appears to be limited, the commentators on the Convention suggest that Member States enjoy wide latitude in determining how to implement its requirements. The United States does not consider that Paris Union Members assumed obligations under article titer to pursue enforcement actions on behalf of third parties. In the United States, enforcement of intellectual property rights in specific cases, including in cases involving alleged infringement of rights under article 6ter, is a private matter for the party concerned. In satisfaction of its obligation under the Convention to prohibit by Page 1 NotesTele appropriate measures the use without authorization of emblems, abbreviations and names of international intergovernmental organizations communicated through the intermediary of the International Bureau, World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States has adopted laws which prohibit unauthorized use of infringing trademarks. For example, the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. u 1051 et seq., offers the possibility for interested parties to challenge use of marks in commerce based on theories, inter alia, of likelihood of confusion, false association and unfair competition. These laws satisfy U.S. obligations under article 6ter by providing the opportunity for States and international intergovernmental organizations to pursue remedies for the unauthorized use of names and other insignia listed in article 6ter, including in cases involving use on the INTERNET. Responsibility for evaluating potentially infringing use of trademarks and other intellectual property, and for taking enforcement action when deemed appropriate, however, rests with the party whose interests are affected. Moreover, the United States notes that with respect to international intergovernmental organizations, obligations under article titer arise only after receipt of a request for extension of protection through the International Bureau, in accordance with the procedures in articles 6ter(3)(b) and (4). The United States is not aware, at this time, of a notification under article 6ter with respect to the name or abbreviation "UNIFEM." Once notified pursuant to article titer, United States authorities would refuse registration, or invalidate, conflicting trademarks consistent with the terms of that article, and would be under an obligation to prohibit by appropriate measures unauthorized use of the notified emblem, abbreviation and name. But, as noted in the preceding paragraph, the latter obligation would be met under the laws of general application that the United States has enacted, and it is the responsibility of the party claiming than an infringement has occurred to take action under U.S. law to challenge perceived unlawful use in commerce. The United States regrets, therefore, that it is unable to provide the direct enforcement assistance requested in this matter. end text. POWELL Additional Addressees: None ----- end telegram ------------- I believe the most important paragraphs are these ones (with asterisk highlights): "For example, the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. u 1051 et seq., offers the possibility for interested parties to challenge use of marks in commerce based on theories, inter alia, of likelihood of confusion, false association and unfair competition. These laws satisfy U.S. obligations under article 6ter by providing the opportunity for States and international intergovernmental organizations to pursue remedies for the unauthorized use of names and other insignia listed in article 6ter, including in cases involving use on the INTERNET. ****Responsibility for evaluating potentially infringing use of trademarks and other intellectual property, and for taking enforcement action when deemed appropriate, however, rests with the party whose interests are affected.****" ****But, as noted in the preceding paragraph, the latter obligation would be met under the laws of general application that the United States has enacted, and it is the responsibility of the party claiming than an infringement has occurred to take action under U.S. law to challenge perceived unlawful use in commerce.**** This informs our discussion, making it very clear that IGOs and states who claim to have "rights" under Article 6ter still need to enforce them in real courts, under real laws. That is the "status quo", namely that they have no special immunity or short-cuts. I don't believe the prior working group was aware of the above document (e.g. zero matches in Google for: site:icann.org "USMISSION USUN"). I believe it would be incorrect, and a departure from established law, to offer a procedure to IGOs where they'd have immunity, when in the real world they have no such immunity when taking enforcement measures. While IGOs might have concerns with the mutual jurisdiction clause in the UDRP, the same issues arise *at all times* they seek to enforce Article 6ter rights. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

6 5

PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
by Phil Corwin Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

WG members: Please find attached a revised draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding the LA GAC Communique that reflects our discussion earlier today. The only changes are to the second bullet point on page 3. PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THESE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. WE WANT TO FORARD THIS LETTER TO THE COUNCILL ASAP TO MAXIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR ITS MEETING NEXT THURSDAY. Thanks in advance. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

10 16

Invitation to GAC Observers to join our WG
by Mary Wong Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Hello everyone, While staff is happy to extend the invitation, we think it would be appropriate to first consult the Council as I do not recall another instance (at least, not in recent years that I know of) where a WG has formally invited specific GAC participants to join a WG. I¹ll send a note to the Council on behalf of the group, and let you all know the Council¹s view. On a related note the GAC list of Observers does include entities such as the International Red Cross Movement, who while they are protected by international treaty are not ³IGOs² as defined for our purposes (multinational organizations created or constituted by governments). Also, the GAC list of Observers includes IGOs that are NOT on the GAC List of Protected IGOs (sent to ICANN in 2013 and the basis on which current protections, including those GNSO consensus recommendations recently adopted by the Board and other interim protections, have been extended. Does the WG wish to invite all GAC Observers accordingly? Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Reply-To: "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique > George, > > Good idea! (at least worth a try ;-) > > Formal question: Who will officially arrange for such invitation - ICANN > Staff, GNSO Council, or?? > > Best, > Petter > > -- > Petter Rindforth, LL M > > Fenix Legal KB > Stureplan 4c, 4tr > 114 35 Stockholm > Sweden > Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu > www.fenixlegal.eu > > > NOTICE > This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to > whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged > information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not > the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it > or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify > us by return e-mail. > Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > Thank you > > > 6 november 2014, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> skrev: >> >> Hello, >> >> The revised draft letter looks fine to me. >> >> On another note, I noticed that the GAC website lists all the "observers": >> >> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Observers >> >> with most of their contact information. To disintermediate, perhaps we >> should extend an invitation to the IGO observers (there are a few >> non-IGOs, e.g. Red Cross) to see whether they'd join our working >> group? >> >> 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

4 5

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
by Phil Corwin Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

WG members: Attached is a third and hopefully final draft of the letter to Council that substitutes Mason's proposed language at the final bullet point. I believe that we have consensus on this language - so please only reply if you have concerns, suggested modifications, or objections to it. Mary, unless we get further feedback by late today then please make this the final version and transmit it to the Council tomorrow morning (use the clean version and after striking the "DRAFT#3-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY" notation on page 1 please check the final formatting so that Attachments A & B start at the top of page - thanks). Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:55 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique Thanks Phil. On Nov 5, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Mason: Given that you have the delicate task of interfacing with the GAC, I think your proposed minor modifications are fine. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique Importance: High Phil -- In my capacity as liaison, let me suggest an edit or two in the bullet point in question that might give us better luck in getting some useful information from the GAC: In regard to the issue of potential amendment of the UDRP - It would be instructive to know the GAC's rationale for opposing any UDRP amendments as a means of providing IGOs with access to curative rights. Further, in opposing such amendments, does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its "Mutual Jurisdiction" provisions to address specific sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? Finally, if it is the GAC's position that an entirely new curative rights mechanism must be created, is it the GAC's understanding that the protections afforded to qualifying IGOs under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention would be the criteria for establishing standing under any dispute resolution procedure that may apply to IGOs? On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: WG members: Please find attached a revised draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding the LA GAC Communique that reflects our discussion earlier today. The only changes are to the second bullet point on page 3. PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THESE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. WE WANT TO FORARD THIS LETTER TO THE COUNCILL ASAP TO MAXIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR ITS MEETING NEXT THURSDAY. Thanks in advance. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey <ICANN-IGO_INGO_CRWG-Letter to GNSO Council-LA_GAC_Advice-draft#2.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. .................................... ...... ...... mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. .................................... ...... ...... mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

2 1

PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
by Jim Bikoff Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Phil, Some non-substantive comments to the revised draft letter to the Council regarding the GAC communique are attached. We do question the inclusion of the question on the second page that asks whether the GAC has "considered that an inability to amend the UDRP would preclude any possible change to its "Mutual Jurisdiction" provisions to address specific sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs". It seems that the new IGO-specific curative rights mechanism GAC seeks would already address sovereign immunity concerns. Given that all IGOs have these concerns, they would presumably all opt to use the new CRM. Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> ________________________________ From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Petter Rindforth [petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 3:45 AM To: George Kirikos Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique George, Good idea! (at least worth a try ;-) Formal question: Who will officially arrange for such invitation - ICANN Staff, GNSO Council, or?? Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 6 november 2014, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> skrev: Hello, The revised draft letter looks fine to me. On another note, I noticed that the GAC website lists all the "observers": https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Observers with most of their contact information. To disintermediate, perhaps we should extend an invitation to the IGO observers (there are a few non-IGOs, e.g. Red Cross) to see whether they'd join our working group? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

5 4

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] On creating a UDRP-like procedure for IGOs, and on 6ter processes
by Mary Wong Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

And here is the link to the draft procedure created in 2007: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347918/Staff%20Draft%20Te xt%20for%20IGO%20DRP%20%26%20Rules%20-%20Sept%202007.pdf?version=1&modificat ionDate=1410802165000&api=v2. It can also be accessed from our WG¹s Background Documents page, along with the other ³historical² information and relevant materials (which we will be adding to as we obtain more): https://community.icann.org/x/DrvhAg From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] On creating a UDRP-like procedure for IGOs, and on 6ter processes > Hello again everybody, > > I just wanted to follow up on Paul¹s, Petter¹s and George¹s recent emails with > a few additional clarifications. > > APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING (LEGACY) DOMAINS > * Our WG charter (based on the scoping done in the Preliminary and Final Issue > Reports) acknowledges that the URS is not currently a Consensus Policy. As > such, it only applies to new gTLDs. The UDRP (as a Consensus Policy) is > binding on all ICANN Contracted Parties via the incorporation clause found in > all registry and registrar agreements (new and existing). In considering a > dispute resolution procedure (DRP) whether a ³modified UDRP/URS² or a ³new² > DRP our WG will therefore have to bear in mind that if this is in fact the > final recommendation(s), it may be in the form of a Consensus Policy binding > on all contracted parties. > UDRP vs URS vs New DRP > * Our Charter also contemplates that we may distinguish between a UDRP and > URS, so for instance the WG could decide to only amend one but not the other > (among other options). This is a topic we will need to put on the WG agenda at > a future meeting. > * In the previous GNSO scoping effort (2007), draft language was in fact > prepared for a possible separate DRP. We have included this document on the WG > wiki: > * Our WG Charter also contemplates that should a separate DRP be recommended, > it must be narrowly tailored and applicable only to the protected > organizations. > ARTICLE 6ter PROCESS > * As George and Paul have noted previously, protection under 6ter is not > automatic, and even after the notification is filed a country/government can > object to it. My understanding is that in many jurisdictions, 6ter protection > is effective only if there is national law effectuating 6ter protection in > that jurisdiction (e.g. by requiring a trademark registration or other form of > statutory protection). The WG will likely want to address this as part of its > discussion on standing in relation to any form of amended or new DRP. > CREATING NEW LEGAL RIGHTS > * This problem was acknowledged early on in the WIPO-2 Process (2001-2). > However, do note that 6ter itself contains limitations in that: (1) protection > of the IGO name/acronym is against use without authorization as a trademark or > as elements of trademarks; AND (2) the use is of such a nature as to either > suggest to or mislead the public as to a possible connection between the user > and the organization concerned. In considering whether or not to amend the > UDRP/URS or develop a new DRP, these limitations may be of assistance to our > WG. > * It is also open to the WG to develop specific and additional express > defenses for any DRP (as was spelled out in the URS, for example). > I realize these do not answer the many excellent questions that have been > raised (nor are they supposed to), and do not address the tricky issues of > immunity/appeal or costs, but I hope they are helpful as background > nonetheless. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > > > From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM > To: "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> > Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of > Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique > >> Petter, >> >> Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge >> issues. In addition to issues noted by others: >> >> 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. >> >> 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. >> >> 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of >> contract (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, >> any new system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing >> domains until a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed >> with each registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean >> the domain was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was >> renewed. >> >> 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris >> Convention and/or WTO. >> >> How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an >> agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? >> >> How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an >> agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular >> name/symbol being included under 6ter? >> >> 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains >> covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to >> the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains >> falling under 6ter. >> >> 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply >> to any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about >> "olympicburgers.com <http://olympicburgers.com> " or >> "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com <http://OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com> >> "? It becomes even worse with acronyms. >> >> I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the >> right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during >> the heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. >> >> The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really >> thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great >> things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the >> risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party >> wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. >> >> This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the >> existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any >> new CRP be limited to those extensions. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paul Keating >> >> On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth >> <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> wrote: >> >>> I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that >>> IGO¹s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. >>> But, to refer to our previous discussion of ³new CRP vs modified version of >>> the UDRP², what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not >>> to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO¹s, but >>> rather ³a modified version of UDRP² that will get a separate name and >>> Regulation. >>> Our ³IGOUDRP² can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor >>> changes related to IGO¹s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants >>> if they are officially listed as IGO¹s - to avoid other >>> organizations/companies to claim that they can use this ³new² system. >>> >>> / Petter >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Petter Rindforth, LL M >>> >>> Fenix Legal KB >>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr >>> 114 35 Stockholm >>> Sweden >>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 >>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 >>> E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu >>> www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> >>> >>> >>> NOTICE >>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to >>> whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged >>> information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not >>> the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it >>> or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and >>> notify us by return e-mail. >>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> >>> Thank you >>> >>> >>> 5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> skrev: >>>> >>>> I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter >>>> although my guess is that they haven¹t even thought about it, and were >>>> meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified >>>> version of the UDRP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What do others think? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>>> >>>> Virtualaw LLC >>>> >>>> 1155 F Street, NW >>>> >>>> Suite 1050 >>>> >>>> Washington, DC 20004 >>>> >>>> 202-559-8597/Direct >>>> >>>> 202-559-8750/Fax >>>> >>>> 202-255-6172/cell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM >>>> To: Phil Corwin >>>> Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of >>>> Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mason's wording is very good. Do you guys think it would be worth building >>>> on Mason¹s wording to try and ascertain if the GAC's proposed prohibition >>>> on UDRP changes is for substantive changes only or if they are seeking to >>>> prohibit procedural changes too? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yours sincerely, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mason: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that you have the delicate task of interfacing with the GAC, I think >>>> your proposed minor modifications are fine. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, Philip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>>> >>>> Virtualaw LLC >>>> >>>> 1155 F Street, NW >>>> >>>> Suite 1050 >>>> >>>> Washington, DC 20004 >>>> >>>> 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct >>>> >>>> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax >>>> >>>> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /cell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM >>>> To: Phil Corwin >>>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of >>>> Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique >>>> Importance: High >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In my capacity as liaison, let me suggest an edit or two in the bullet >>>> point in question that might give us better luck in getting some useful >>>> information from the GAC: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In regard to the issue of potential amendment of the UDRP It would be >>>> instructive to know the GAC¹s rationale for opposing any UDRP amendments as >>>> a means of providing IGOs with access to curative rights. Further, in >>>> opposing such amendments, does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any >>>> possible change to its "Mutual Jurisdiction" provisions to address specific >>>> sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? Finally, if it is the GAC¹s position >>>> that an entirely new curative rights mechanism must be created, is it the >>>> GAC's understanding that the protections afforded to qualifying IGOs under >>>> Article 6ter of the Paris Convention would be the criteria for establishing >>>> standing under any dispute resolution procedure that may apply to IGOs? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> WG members: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find attached a revised draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding >>>> the LA GAC Communique that reflects our discussion earlier today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The only changes are to the second bullet point on page 3. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THESE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 >>>> HOURS. WE WANT TO FORARD THIS LETTER TO THE COUNCILL ASAP TO MAXIMIZE THE >>>> POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR ITS MEETING NEXT >>>> THURSDAY. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, Philip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>>> >>>> Virtualaw LLC >>>> >>>> 1155 F Street, NW >>>> >>>> Suite 1050 >>>> >>>> Washington, DC 20004 >>>> >>>> 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct >>>> >>>> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax >>>> >>>> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /cell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <ICANN-IGO_INGO_CRWG-Letter to GNSO >>>> Council-LA_GAC_Advice-draft#2.docx>________________________________________ >>>> _______ >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mason Cole >>>> >>>> VP Communications & Industry Relations >>>> >>>> Donuts Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> mason(a)donuts.co >>>> >>>> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 <tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623> >>>> >>>> Cell +1 503 407 2555 <tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] On creating a UDRP-like procedure for IGOs, and on 6ter processes
by Mary Wong Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Hello again everybody, I just wanted to follow up on Paul¹s, Petter¹s and George¹s recent emails with a few additional clarifications. APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING (LEGACY) DOMAINS * Our WG charter (based on the scoping done in the Preliminary and Final Issue Reports) acknowledges that the URS is not currently a Consensus Policy. As such, it only applies to new gTLDs. The UDRP (as a Consensus Policy) is binding on all ICANN Contracted Parties via the incorporation clause found in all registry and registrar agreements (new and existing). In considering a dispute resolution procedure (DRP) whether a ³modified UDRP/URS² or a ³new² DRP our WG will therefore have to bear in mind that if this is in fact the final recommendation(s), it may be in the form of a Consensus Policy binding on all contracted parties. UDRP vs URS vs New DRP * Our Charter also contemplates that we may distinguish between a UDRP and URS, so for instance the WG could decide to only amend one but not the other (among other options). This is a topic we will need to put on the WG agenda at a future meeting. * In the previous GNSO scoping effort (2007), draft language was in fact prepared for a possible separate DRP. We have included this document on the WG wiki: * Our WG Charter also contemplates that should a separate DRP be recommended, it must be narrowly tailored and applicable only to the protected organizations. ARTICLE 6ter PROCESS * As George and Paul have noted previously, protection under 6ter is not automatic, and even after the notification is filed a country/government can object to it. My understanding is that in many jurisdictions, 6ter protection is effective only if there is national law effectuating 6ter protection in that jurisdiction (e.g. by requiring a trademark registration or other form of statutory protection). The WG will likely want to address this as part of its discussion on standing in relation to any form of amended or new DRP. CREATING NEW LEGAL RIGHTS * This problem was acknowledged early on in the WIPO-2 Process (2001-2). However, do note that 6ter itself contains limitations in that: (1) protection of the IGO name/acronym is against use without authorization as a trademark or as elements of trademarks; AND (2) the use is of such a nature as to either suggest to or mislead the public as to a possible connection between the user and the organization concerned. In considering whether or not to amend the UDRP/URS or develop a new DRP, these limitations may be of assistance to our WG. * It is also open to the WG to develop specific and additional express defenses for any DRP (as was spelled out in the URS, for example). I realize these do not answer the many excellent questions that have been raised (nor are they supposed to), and do not address the tricky issues of immunity/appeal or costs, but I hope they are helpful as background nonetheless. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM To: "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique > Petter, > > Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge issues. > In addition to issues noted by others: > > 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. > > 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. > > 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of contract > (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, any new > system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing domains until > a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed with each > registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean the domain > was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was renewed. > > 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris > Convention and/or WTO. > > How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an > agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? > > How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an > agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular > name/symbol being included under 6ter? > > 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains > covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to > the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains > falling under 6ter. > > 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply to > any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about > "olympicburgers.com <http://olympicburgers.com> " or > "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com <http://OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com> "? > It becomes even worse with acronyms. > > I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the > right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during the > heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. > > The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really > thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great > things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the > risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party > wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. > > This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the > existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any > new CRP be limited to those extensions. > > Regards, > > Paul Keating > > On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> > wrote: > >> I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that >> IGO¹s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. >> But, to refer to our previous discussion of ³new CRP vs modified version of >> the UDRP², what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not >> to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO¹s, but rather >> ³a modified version of UDRP² that will get a separate name and Regulation. >> Our ³IGOUDRP² can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes >> related to IGO¹s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they >> are officially listed as IGO¹s - to avoid other organizations/companies to >> claim that they can use this ³new² system. >> >> / Petter >> >> >> -- >> Petter Rindforth, LL M >> >> Fenix Legal KB >> Stureplan 4c, 4tr >> 114 35 Stockholm >> Sweden >> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 >> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 >> E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu >> www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> >> >> >> NOTICE >> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to >> whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged >> information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not >> the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it >> or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and >> notify us by return e-mail. >> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> >> Thank you >> >> >> 5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> skrev: >>> >>> I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter >>> although my guess is that they haven¹t even thought about it, and were >>> meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified >>> version of the UDRP. >>> >>> >>> >>> What do others think? >>> >>> >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>> >>> Virtualaw LLC >>> >>> 1155 F Street, NW >>> >>> Suite 1050 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20004 >>> >>> 202-559-8597/Direct >>> >>> 202-559-8750/Fax >>> >>> 202-255-6172/cell >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>> >>> >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM >>> To: Phil Corwin >>> Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of >>> Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique >>> >>> >>> >>> Mason's wording is very good. Do you guys think it would be worth building >>> on Mason¹s wording to try and ascertain if the GAC's proposed prohibition on >>> UDRP changes is for substantive changes only or if they are seeking to >>> prohibit procedural changes too? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >>> >>> Mason: >>> >>> >>> >>> Given that you have the delicate task of interfacing with the GAC, I think >>> your proposed minor modifications are fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, Philip >>> >>> >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>> >>> Virtualaw LLC >>> >>> 1155 F Street, NW >>> >>> Suite 1050 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20004 >>> >>> 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct >>> >>> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax >>> >>> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /cell >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>> >>> >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM >>> To: Phil Corwin >>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of >>> Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil -- >>> >>> >>> >>> In my capacity as liaison, let me suggest an edit or two in the bullet point >>> in question that might give us better luck in getting some useful >>> information from the GAC: >>> >>> >>> >>> In regard to the issue of potential amendment of the UDRP It would be >>> instructive to know the GAC¹s rationale for opposing any UDRP amendments as >>> a means of providing IGOs with access to curative rights. Further, in >>> opposing such amendments, does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any >>> possible change to its "Mutual Jurisdiction" provisions to address specific >>> sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? Finally, if it is the GAC¹s position >>> that an entirely new curative rights mechanism must be created, is it the >>> GAC's understanding that the protections afforded to qualifying IGOs under >>> Article 6ter of the Paris Convention would be the criteria for establishing >>> standing under any dispute resolution procedure that may apply to IGOs? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> WG members: >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached a revised draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding >>> the LA GAC Communique that reflects our discussion earlier today. >>> >>> >>> >>> The only changes are to the second bullet point on page 3. >>> >>> >>> >>> PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THESE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. >>> WE WANT TO FORARD THIS LETTER TO THE COUNCILL ASAP TO MAXIMIZE THE >>> POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR ITS MEETING NEXT >>> THURSDAY. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, Philip >>> >>> >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >>> >>> Virtualaw LLC >>> >>> 1155 F Street, NW >>> >>> Suite 1050 >>> >>> Washington, DC 20004 >>> >>> 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct >>> >>> 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax >>> >>> 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /cell >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @VlawDC >>> >>> >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> >>> >>> <ICANN-IGO_INGO_CRWG-Letter to GNSO >>> Council-LA_GAC_Advice-draft#2.docx>_________________________________________ >>> ______ >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> >>> >>> >>> Mason Cole >>> >>> VP Communications & Industry Relations >>> >>> Donuts Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> mason(a)donuts.co >>> >>> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 <tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623> >>> >>> Cell +1 503 407 2555 <tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

IGOs
by Paul Keating Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Phil, I want to add something to George's recent email regarding the need to privately enforce. I believe there may be a common misconception in the WG that the names etc of IGOS are trademarks just because they are referenced in the Paris Convention. This is not the case. 6ter of the Convention does not create TM rights. Rather the Paris Convention merely provides that members will not allow registration or use of identical symbols by others for use AS TRADEMARKS. Art 6ter was subsequently expanded to apply to and benefit all WTO members. This means several things. 1. Use for non-trademark purposes is not prohibited, 2. Registration or use of the trademark is prohibited only if it "suggest[s] to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned and the armorial bearings, flags, emblems, abbreviations, and names"; 3. Registration or use of the trademark is allowed if it "is probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organization." 4. "Prohibition of the use of official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty shall apply solely in cases where the marks in which they are incorporated are intended to be used on goods of the same or a similar kind." 5. The requirement is "heraldic". As State emblems frequently comprise common symbols, such as a lion, an eagle or the sun, imitations are forbidden only if they reproduce the heraldic characteristics of the State sign concerned. In consequence, the symbol as such remains free and may be used in the composition of trademarks. So, the convention neither creates a right nor precludes registration in absolute terms. The operative language is as follows: > “(1) (a) The countries of the Union agree to refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view. > > (b) The provisions of subparagraph (a), above, shall apply equally to armorial bearings, flags, other emblems, abbreviations, and names, of international intergovernmental organizations of which one or more countries of the Union are members, with the exception of armorial bearings, flags, other emblems, abbreviations, and names, that are already the subject of international agreements in force, intended to ensure their protection. > > (c) No country of the Union shall be required to apply the provisions of subparagraph (b), above, to the prejudice of the owners of rights acquired in good faith before the entry into force, in that country, of this Convention. The countries of the Union shall not be required to apply the said provisions when the use or registration referred to in subparagraph (a), above, is not of such a nature as to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned and the armorial bearings, flags, emblems, abbreviations, and names, or if such use or registration is probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organization. > > (2) Prohibition of the use of official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty shall apply solely in cases where the marks in which they are incorporated are intended to be used on goods of the same or a similar kind. " > In looking at the language (and the relevant language of 15 USC 1152), it thus does not appear that IGO names, etc are in fact provided the status of trademarks. Rather, any "right" is limited to a right to prevent any person from registering a Heraldically identical sign for use AS A TRADEMARK. And, even this blocking right is further limited as noted above (items listed 2-4). IMPACT ON ANALYSIS. This impacts,our analysis in several important aspects. Standing. For those IGOs that have no trademark registration (in any country), the absence of registration rights means that standing under current CRPs requires establishment of common law trademark rights. Although the Paris Convention established a centralized Database of covered symbols etc, (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en) It is clear that registration with the "international bureau" does not create rights. This is evident in the objection process which allows any state to simply object to a proposed name/symbol but does not require resolution of the objection. There have in fact been objections in the past to both state and IGO communications. If the common law approach is felt to be insufficient, the only way I see around the issue would be to either amend the UDRP (and each NewgTLD policy) to include State and IGO names/symbols appearing in the WIPO database as "trademarks" under the 1st Element f the Policy, or create an entirely new CRP system. Additional changes to the UDRP may be required as a result of: (a) The absolute limitation of any right when complained of use is not as a trademark; (b) Limitations on the blocking right which go beyond or are arguably different from the language of the Policy relative to legitimate rights and bad faith (non TM use and no confusion); (c) The Convention' somewhat inconsistent reference to registration OR use as a trademark; (d) The absolute limitation of any restriction to prospective application only (meaning no enforcement as against marks that pre-dated the particular State or IGO name or symbol). And, of course the above does not address the issues of costs and/or immunity. :( I attach a link to a very good review of the 6ter issue published in 2005 by the STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS. It includes the actual text of the Paris Convention AND the explanatory notes published there with. See:http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_15/sct_15_3.pdf Also, I note two added references which I have not been able to obtain thus far (Mary could you assist please). These are, 1. Bodenhausen, Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, WIPO Publication No. 611, WIPO, Geneva, 2004, pp. 94-103 - a detailed legal analysis to Article 6ter. 2. Document P/A/XIX/4, Report adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union which appears to be a 1992 memorandum outlining the basic requirements that each 6ter symbol/name must meet to qualify. Please ignore any typos etc. I find it difficult to produce anything serious on an IPad. Regards, Paul Keating

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
by George Kirikos Nov. 6, 2014

Nov. 6, 2014

Hello, The revised draft letter looks fine to me. On another note, I noticed that the GAC website lists all the "observers": https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Observers with most of their contact information. To disintermediate, perhaps we should extend an invitation to the IGO observers (there are a few non-IGOs, e.g. Red Cross) to see whether they'd join our working group? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and document for review, for WG call on Wednesday 5 November
by Paul Keating Nov. 5, 2014

Nov. 5, 2014

Hello all, I wanted to provide the following prior to the upcoming call. I am still bothered by the apparent desire to treat organizations differently and to limit the work of the WG artificially (IMO). I am concerned doing so will lead to (a) further work, (b) inconsistent conclusions and treatment, and (c) an eventual watering down of the dispute process and the rights of registrants.. In reviewing the following please remember that the value of domain names is continuing to increase and they will become more prominently used by serious businesses. In other words, we are no longer in the days of presuming the problem is squatters and the like. I see three (3) issues here: 1. Standing (what it takes to participate in the curative process) 2. Immunity issues (the apparent waiver caused by the complainant's selection pif the Mutual Jurisdiction) 3. Costs STANDING: It seems to me that there is a single standing threshold to be met here for any curative rights namely a trademark. Whether that mark exists as a function of registration under national law or under some vague concept of common law (which the UDRP panels have applied even as to complainants in civil law jurisdictions with no "common law" trademark jurisprudence) makes little or no difference be cause the existence of the trademark is the most basic of standing requirements. Treaties are not a separate form of law as treaties only have meaning as adopted by the national laws of those States who are signatories to the treaty. In short there is no "international executive or legislative branch". Thus, any protection granted by treaty must be in turn founded in the national laws of the signing states. Thus, bits of the Paris Convention is included as part of the Lanham Act. If a complainant (whether an IGO, INGO, or any other person or entity) cannot establish this threshold then there should be no further discussion. To hold otherwise means that we are now embarking on creating a new curative rights mechanism with a new standing criteria. This would be highly problematic for the reasons we have all discussed and I do not believe doing so would be consistent with any mandate received. So, it seems to me we can logically deal with each type of person/entity under the same standing requirement. We have no need to discriminate here. This leaves us with two subsequent issues to face immunity and costs. IMMUNITY. As I noted in an earlier email, immunity is not absolute and a waiver in one instance is not a waiver for all instances. Thus, a State is immune unless it is engaging in activities not relevant to governance (e.g. Airlines). The government loses its immunity as to matters concerning the operation of the airline but not otherwise. In this case, the issue is registration of the domain name. The question is by whom. Registration by INGO/IGO, etc. In this case the complainant has already agreed to the traditional RA which incorporates the UDRP and other provisions. I would argue that the act of registration already waived immunity issues at least to the extent concerning the contractual relationship (with the registrar). As far as any curative rights proceeding, that would automatically occur as a matter of law when the IGO/INGO filed a complaint and selected the Mutual Jurisdiction. However, that wavier occurred ONLY with respect to the nature of the action a dispute over a domain. Courts are intelligent enough to see through an attempt to expand liability beyond that point. So, I really do not see this as a huge issue warranting a separate process. And, if it were, it could be aided by either amending the RULES of procedure clarifying that by consenting the the MJ, the consent is only as to the issues pertaining to domain name registration. In other words, the MJ provision could limit any potential exposure of the IGO/INGO. This could be done without requiring changes to the the UDRP itself. Registration by third party (protective rights of IGO/INGO). In the case in which a third party registers a domain the IGO/INGO believes to be infringing, existing mechanisms are sufficient. The IGO/INGO can participate with TMCH to the extent it otherwise qualifies. Again, if it holds no trademark rights, it has no standing any any curative rights mechanism. I see no reason to allow them special treatment to receive notice when they cannot do anything about the registration. Thus, if they qualify they can have appropriate notice and determine whether or not to file a claim using existing curative rights mechanisms. COSTS. Someone has to pay for the process. Just because entities do good things does not remove them from economic reality. Nor does it give us the right to impose a "tax" on someone else to cover the costs that the IGO/INGO does not want to (or perhaps even cannot) pay. I am not expecting any of the ADR providers to jump up an volunteer even WIPO which itself is an IGO who one would think should assist its "brethren". This leaves ICANN or the respondent. ICANN is a doubtful funding agent as it sets a very dangerous precedent for them. Again, the respondent should not be made to pay this amount and even if we attempted to impose it upon registrants they could easily escape it by registering their domains for 10 years prior to the effective date of any change (remember we are able only to impose this "new" system as a matter of contract via the RAA and the RA. So this returns us to the point that regardless of their good deeds, unless an IGO or INGO can get the law firm to donate time and filing fees, it simply cannot afford to take advantage of the process. This is nothing new and both claimants and defendants (even those with VERY good claims) are regularly denied access to the wheels of justice. Erosion of Standards: I remain concerned as well that by separating out various entities we run the risk of treating them inconsistently. The tendency here may be to have the rules for each entity group be slightly different. This will lead to confusion and conflict. The UDRP has already become so watered down that the language of the 1st element (which is a standard term of art for trademark disputes) has become nothing more than a "standing" hurdle that a worm could cross without much trouble. So, I return again to my original point which is why distinguish? It makes no sense unless we are embarking on the establishment of a new standing requirement. I have not heard any consensus views in favor of such a process. Hence the "consensus" to differentiate makes little sense from a logical perspective and will only make further work for someone down the road, potentially leading to inconsistencies that we will all regret. 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 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:45 AM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and document for review, for WG call on Wednesday 5 November > Dear WG members, > > The agenda for our next meeting, on Wednesday 5 November, is as follows: > 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI > 2. Discussion of questions to be sent to the GNSO Council/GAC-GNSO Liaison for > follow up on the GAC¹s Los Angeles Communique (see attached draft document > from the WG Co-Chairs) > 3. Discussion of possible distinction between: (a) IGOs & INGOs; (b) the Red > Cross and IOC compared to other INGOs > 4. Next steps > WG Co-Chair Petter Rindforth will chair the meeting. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

6 9

Follow up from the WG call earlier today
by Mary Wong Nov. 5, 2014

Nov. 5, 2014

Dear WG members, Please find attached: (1) the March 2014 letter sent by Cherine Chelaby, Chair of the Board¹s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson informing the GNSO of the NGPC¹s proposal to the GAC concerning IGO protections; (2) the NGPC proposal; and (3) the subsequent Briefing Note (August 2014) sent by the GNSO Council to the NGPC regarding the initiation and chartering of our current Working Group. The Board¹s February 2014 resolution that led to the NGPC developing its March proposal can be found here: https://features.icann.org/protection-igo-ingo-identifiers-all-gtlds-pdp As mentioned on our call, these communications as well as the ongoing Board-GNSO discussions and GAC advice from Los Angeles show that the Board and the GAC are fully aware of the existence and work of our group. The pending WG letter that is to be sent to the GNSO Council for review and transmission to the GAC should serve as another update to and reminder of our ongoing work. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 05 November 2014 at 1700 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 5, 2014

Nov. 5, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 05 November 2014 at 1700 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141029-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141105-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Mason Cole – RySG Lori Schulman – NPOC Gary Campbell – GAC Alexander Lerman – no SOI David Healsley - IPC Nat Cohen – BC Paul Raynor Keating – NCUC Imran Ahmed Shah – NCUC Kathy Kleiman – NCUC Apologies: Jay Chapman – Individual Kristine Dorrain- Individual ICANN staff: Mary Wong Amy Bivins Steve Chan Berry Cobb Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg> https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 05 November 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 5th November 2014 George Kirikos:Hi folks. Gary Campbell:Hi guys Osvaldo Novoa:Hi all Mason Cole:greetings George Kirikos:Paul Keating likely won't be able to make it (I had encouraged him to email his thoughts to the mailing list, so they could be considered during today's call) Mary Wong:@George, thanks for the head's up. I've prepared a document with Paul's notes that we can display on the screen when the topic comes up. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:I'm sorry I'm not able to speak in the session today. Some issues in my side and not with the system at all. Mary Wong:@Dietmar, thanks - we'll be watching the chat so feel free to post your questions/comments, if any! Philip Corwin:Good day to all Mary Wong:The document is unsync'ed so everyone should be able to scroll through it. Terri Agnew:Nat Cohen has joined audio George Kirikos:Letter looks good to me. We need more 'colour' from them, rather than just a conclusion. George Kirikos:(conclusion = directive) Lori Schulman:Agree with George's comments. George Kirikos:Rationale is good language. If they come back with no rationale, then that is informative -- little weight should be given to input that has no rationale. George Kirikos:But, as we studied in subgroup B, half of the IGO reserved names aren't even registered in Article 6ter's database. Mary Wong:Will do, thanks, Phil George Kirikos:(I'm not sure if the spreadsheet was posted to the Wiki yet) Mason Cole:Very short proposal from me: In the second question, it would read, "What is the GAC's rationale for opposing..." Terri Agnew:Paul Keating has joined Paul Keating:Hello all. Sorry I am late George Kirikos:My question on the GAC leadership vacuuum was based on the article at: George Kirikos:http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014/11/03/icann_icant_iwont_lifting_the_lid_on_the_net_lord_and_master/ Mary Wong:And from me: "is it the GAC's understanding that the protections afforded to qualifying IGOs under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention would be the criteria for establishing standing under any dispute resolution procedure that may apply to IGOs?" George Kirikos:"Unfortunately, the eventual winner of an election for the seat, Swiss civil servant Thomas Schneider, noted in his acceptance speech that it would take some time for him to reduce his current workload and suggested that Dryden stay on until the next ICANN meeting. Dryden was having none of it, leading to busy discussions about who would actually be in charge of representing the world's governments for the next four months." Terri Agnew:Imran Ahmed Shah has joined George Kirikos:(is everyone not talking on "mute"?) Terri Agnew:we are finding the line George Kirikos:The "active speakers" at the top of the attendees list can show 'noisy' lines) Paul Keating:Phil/Peder, On the last item on the letter, I suggest you also reference the possibility of amending the Mutual Jurisdiction language to allow IGOs to limit immunity wavier issue. Mary Wong:@Mason, that's true Mary Wong:@Paul, noted - thanks and I'll try to draft something Paul Keating:having problems with microphone. George Kirikos:Perhaps he forgot to unmute? Paul Keating:Can you see my chat above? George Kirikos:We can see the chat. Paul Keating:yes George Kirikos:From Spain, you can dial in by voice at 34-91-414-25-33 or 800-300-053 (code = IGO). Paul Keating:@George thanks. Paul Keating:OK George Kirikos:The risk of doing that is that they come up with a solid position that won't consider our own research. Terri Agnew:@Paul Keating, I sent you a private chat George Kirikos:Turn off speakerphone or computer audio, if you're on the phone. Paul Tattersfield:I agree George, there are other similar issues such as changes to process etc. George Kirikos:Rationale should be for "causes of problems". George Kirikos:Not for "rationales for their solutions." George Kirikos:i.e. we want rationale for inputs, not rationale for "outputs", if that makes sense. Terri Agnew:Kathy Kleiman has joined Lori Schulman:Thre is an echo on the audio Mary Wong:@Paul, please mute your computer to avoid echo with your phone line Kathy:Hi All, sorry to be late. George Kirikos:Paul probably has speaker phone or computer speakers on. George Kirikos:(Paul Keating, rather, since we have multiple Pauls) Paul Keating:actually it was all muted. just using the screen Mary Wong:@Petter, sorry, you're right - we did discuss all three issues for GAC response! Kathy:I don't normally quote Wikipedia, but here is a part of the INSO discussion: "Both terms, NGO and INGO, should be differentiated from intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), which describes groups such as the United Nations or the International Labour Organization. An INGO may be founded by private philanthropy, such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Ford Foundations, or as an adjunct to existing international organizations, such as the Catholic or Lutheran churches. A surge in the founding of development INGOs occurred during World War II, some of which would later become the large development INGOs like Oxfam, Catholic Relief Services, CARE International, and Lutheran World Relief." George Kirikos:Right, Kathy. As in the original email I sent to the list, it seemed like a single member of the prior working group thought that being on the UNESCO list made that subset of INGOs comparable to Article 6ter. George Kirikos:Which didn't make much sense, but that was the 'rationale' (or 'original sin', so to speak!). George Kirikos:The ECOSOC list, to be exact. Mary Wong:@George, @Kathy - right. The prior WG went through a lot of discussions in trying to figure out which INGOs to include. Paul Keating:how are the issues different? Kathy:@Mary, what proposal? Paul Keating:Phils ref to IGOs and Red Cross Paul Keating:They are no different from the other issues in my email. IMHO Kathy:@Mary, then isn't everything we are doing a waste of time - if the Board's New gTLD Committee is already proposing the answers? George Kirikos:That proposal wouldn't be a "Consensus Policy", though (whereas our work would). George Kirikos:Any policy we come up with would apply to all gTLDs (whereas the NGPC doesn't appear to have the abillity to touch .com/net/org, etc.) Paul Tattersfield:Dr Crocker replied to the GAC Communique on item 6 (the item after Protection of IGO Names & Acronyms) Paul Tattersfield:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-bo… Mary Wong:@George, yes - our work would include legacy and new gTLDs, and could result in a Consensus Policy (or an amendment thereto) Lori Schulman:My understanding is that Lori Schulman:ROC and IOC have lobbied the GAC directly. Paul Tattersfield:Wrong link sorry - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-0… Lori Schulman:As an operational concern, NPOC supports RPMs for INGO's in general but whether they should be different for different orgs is the bigger question Mary Wong:@Paul, sorry - I put up the wrong document :( I put up my own summary and notes on what would need to be modified based on the NGPC's proposal. Mary Wong:I'll find the original document and send it to the WG mailing list ASAP. George Kirikos:Paul Keating's point is a good one, that there be underlying principles or a framework. If it's a "shortcut" to not consider all INGOs, there should be some principle behind it (i.e. there's no special circumstances for them). Lori Schulman:Do we know of any similiarly situated INGO's that have expressed concern about cost? George Kirikos:If we look at the ECOSOC list, it seems obvious that many INGOs on that list do have registered TMs. George Kirikos:e.g. AARP. George Kirikos:http://csonet.org/content/documents/e2013inf6.pdf Lori Schulman:I need to leave the call but I support submitting the letter as per the earlier discussion. George Kirikos:Covenant House has a US TM, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73294464 <http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73294464&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=st…> &caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch George Kirikos:So, they *already* have access. Nothing prevents them from obtaining marks, Lori Schulman:The standing issue re: who uses the RPM's makes the most sense to level the playing field. Lori Schulman:Ciao Kathy:@Paul, while I agree, I think we are being asked to consider whether a "6ter" notification is equivalent to a federal trademark - or one we (WG) are willing to recognize Kathy:? Mary Wong:@Kathy, I can't speak for the GAC but I would think that's the GAC/IGO position George Kirikos:Red Cross and IOC already have many registrations, and they've used the UDRP. Mary Wong:For IGOs anyway George Kirikos:(not sure if they used the URS yet) Paul Keating:@Kathy, That is a decision not up to us. The panelists can make that decision. The language exists in the Lanham Act and other national laws. Whether that is acceptable as a tm registration is up to the panels. Mary Wong:@Paul, the difference may be that while it may make sense to "sub" a TM registration with international legal rights, that would apply to IGOs (and presumably also the RC and IOC) but it would bar INGOs. Kathy:@All, I think we are being asked whether the "6ter" is something we want to expressly embrace in the UDRP George Kirikos:That was Paul Keating. George Kirikos:Before we go, should the subgroups continue meeting before the next call? Mary Wong:@George, we'll follow up with email and ntoes Paul Keating:yes pls Kathy:Is Singapore definite? Mary Wong:Yes Kathy Kathy:Tx Mary ... .and All! George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Kathy:Tx Chairs! Paul Tattersfield:Bye everyone Mason Cole:thanks!! Paul Keating:Kathy, I woiuld like to continue the conversation Paul(a)law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es> . Gary Campbell:Bye all

1 0

Agenda and document for review, for WG call on Wednesday 5 November
by Mary Wong Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Dear WG members, The agenda for our next meeting, on Wednesday 5 November, is as follows: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Discussion of questions to be sent to the GNSO Council/GAC-GNSO Liaison for follow up on the GAC¹s Los Angeles Communique (see attached draft document from the WG Co-Chairs) 3. Discussion of possible distinction between: (a) IGOs & INGOs; (b) the Red Cross and IOC compared to other INGOs 4. Next steps WG Co-Chair Petter Rindforth will chair the meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Terri Agnew Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 06 November or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

1 0