February 2015 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Meeting invitation: new IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group- Wednesday 04 March 2015 - 17:00 UTC
by Imran Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Dear Members, With reference to the invitation for the meeting on 4th March, please accept my apology because I will be at UNESCO Conference CONNECTing Dots being held on 3-4 March in Paris. However, I will go through the Recording later on. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah

2 2

MP3 IGO WG F2F ICANN52 Friday 13 February 2015
by Terri Agnew Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recordings for the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call held F2F ICANN52 Singapore Friday, 13th February 2015 9:00-17:00 http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/igo-ingo-crp-access-13feb15-e… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls will be posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendance on line: George Kirikos - Individual David Heasley - IPC Imran Ahmed Shah - NCUC Jay Chapman - Individual Kristine Dorrain- Individual Lori Schulman - NPOC Alexander Lerman - Individual Attendance in the room: Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC David Cake - GNSO Vice Chair Val Sherman - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Mason Cole - RySG Susan Kawaguchi - BC Staff: Mary Wong Glen de Saint Gery Steve Chang Berry Cobb Terri Agnew Facilitator from Incite learning Chris Robinson ** 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Friday 13 February 2015 Terri Agnew: Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG F2F Meeting on the 13th February 2015 in Indiana Room Lori Schulman:I don't see a microphone icon on my adobe connect Lori Schulman:should I call in too? Lori Schulman:I now have the mic Lori Schulman:George and I are buddies Jay Chapman:Good morning/evening to all :) George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Terri Agnew:Lori, I see you mic is active. Did you want to test it? Lori Schulman:yes Lori Schulman:should I speak? Lori Schulman:I heard Terri and George speaking Terri Agnew:Excellent! George Kirikos:Are you able to speak, Lori? George Kirikos:(didn't hear you yet) Lori Schulman:I just said, can you hear me? Lori Schulman:Guess not George Kirikos:Nope. Hmmmmm. Terri Agnew:@Lori, we did not hear you but I do see your mic is active Terri Agnew:Is your computer muted? Lori Schulman:Not muted George Kirikos:Calling 1-866-692-5726 (code = IGO1) might be easier. Lori Schulman:I will dialin George Kirikos:(toll-free) Lori Schulman:thanks Jay Chapman:testing microphone on cpu.... George Kirikos:I don't hear you yet, Jay. Maybe the toll-free is better? Jay Chapman:10-4 Mary Wong:Hello everyone - we will be starting soon. Apologies for the delay. George Kirikos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Sling Philip Corwin:Good morning to all from Singapore George Kirikos:Hi Phil. Philip Corwin:Hello George George Kirikos:David Heasley too. Philip Corwin:And David as well David Heasley:Thanks Mary Wong:How's the sound coming out for folks on RF? Mary Wong:RP I mean George Kirikos:Were any IGOs present/observing today? George Kirikos:Sound is good for me. Philip Corwin:And Lori too :-) Mary Wong:@George, only WIPO was here in Singapore and unfortunately Brian could not get his flight back changed. He very much wanted to be here. Mary Wong:That would be Brian Beckham, WIPO. Mary Wong:As far as staff can discern, no other IGO representatives involved in this issue were present in Singapore Lori Schulman:Hi Phil. Excited for today. Mary Wong:Is everyone in AC also dialed in or otherwise have the ability to speak? Lori Schulman:Congrats Phil on GNSO seat Philip Corwin:Thanks Lori George Kirikos:Well done, Phil, and also on your presentation earlier this week to the GNSO council. George Kirikos:Echo sound is awful. Terri Agnew:@Lori, please mute your computer speakers George Kirikos:That fixed it. George Kirikos:Yes, we can. Terri Agnew:@Alexander Lerman, your mic is not active David Heasley:Val can introduce me George Kirikos:1-866-692-5726 code = IGO1, Alex. George Kirikos:Here's my SOI, for the record: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI George Kirikos:Echo again. Mary Wong:@George, is there still an echo? George Kirikos:Nope, all good now here. Alexander Lerman:Thanks Terri Mary Wong:@Alexander, can you type a brief introduction of yourself in this chat? George Kirikos:We can raise our hand in Adobe. Glen de Saint Gery:please send me your telephone numbers if you would like to call out to you send them to glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> George Kirikos:Are we making a transcript today? (if so, it'd help if speakers identify themselves as they begin to speak) Mary Wong:@George, yes - thanks for the reminder! Mary Wong:We will be recording via MP3 and transcript, and these will all be posted. Lori Schulman:I recognize Kathy's voice anywhere. :) George Kirikos:Did we receive any further GNSO Constituency responses since our conference call of a few weeks ago? Terri Agnew:Welcome David Cake Mary Wong:@George, I believe not; so the only substantive Constituency responses we have so far are from the IPC and ISPCP. George Kirikos:I'm surprised. I thought the 'deadline' was end of Jan? Mary Wong:@George, yes, that's what we had asked. George Kirikos:It's odd, since on the one hand, they agreed to a PDP, implying this matter was important. But, only 2 are George Kirikos:providing us with input. Hmmm. David Cake:A constituency can all believe the issue is important, but not all hold the same views so be unable to provide a constituency response. George Kirikos:It would be helpful if they responded, though, to note the divergence of views. George Kirikos:With silence, we don't learn much. George Kirikos:URS is not run by WIPO. So, they don't have a "WIPO views" document. Mary Wong:@George, yes - so I believe Phil was referring to just the standing requirement as a general point. Mary Wong:You're in the queue, George. George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. George Kirikos:They're more like trademark-blocking rights. George Kirikos:ADNDRC is the 2nd provider. George Kirikos:(see bottom of http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs ) Philip Corwin:Thx George George Kirikos:Some IGOs do have traditional TMs, in addition to their Article 6ter registrations, of course. George Kirikos:And, nothing prevents them from obtaining those cheap TM registrations. Recall, TM registrations are on the order of $300 or so for 10 years in many countries. George Kirikos:Whereas a UDRP is $1500+ typically. Philip Corwin:Yes, and of course if they have registered one or more TMs there is no issue as regards standing based upon them. George Kirikos:Exactly. Perhaps one recommendation we can make is that governments allow for cheap/free TM registration fees for IGO applicants. George Kirikos:(i.e. USPTO, CIPO in Canada, etc.) Philip Corwin:Good suggestion! George Kirikos:It'd complement their Article 6ter rights, and perhaps strengthen/clarify things, but offline and online. George Kirikos:but=both Lori Schulman:Given Petter's explanation about what this document is, then Kathy's suggestion for place holder words is OK with me Mary Wong:@Lori, yes - no problem with placeholder language as long as there's an understanding that this is not (yet) a proposal to actually amend the language of the UDRP. Mary Wong:Anyone participating remotely who has a question or comment? George Kirikos:Yes, they have standing under common law, even if it's not in Article 6ter, Mary Wong:We got ya, Geroge Mary Wong:George (sorry) George Kirikos:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Sub+Group+B+-+Exis… had a link to the Spreadsheet comparing the ICANN Reserved list to the Article 6ter DB (the 6ter Analysis of Oct 28) Imran Ahmed Shah:Yes, +1, I also agree on the consensus . Jay Chapman:agree with Phil's summation George Kirikos:I took down my hand, so we're ok. Mary Wong:OK thanks George George Kirikos:(we're getting close to the planned break, by the way) Mary Wong:@George, noted :) George Kirikos:Perhaps we should do a straw poll, as to whether anyone here believes we should amend the UDRP language itself? (i.e. as opposed to just focusing on the education aspect) Mary Wong:@George, I think that's one of the next agenda items :) George Kirikos:since it seems most/all who spoke seemed to focus on the education aspect (i.e. adding the WIPO Overview Q/A) George Kirikos:2 minute warning until we resume? Lori Schulman:Sorry for the noise folks. I couldn't hear you so I figured you could not hear me. Mary Wong:We'll be starting again now George Kirikos:That's an approach that's been rejected by most UDRP panels. -- the so-called "Octogen" analysis. George Kirikos:Here's a story about some of the Octogen controversy. George Kirikos:http://domainnamewire.com/2011/03/03/a-landmark-showdown-at-world-i… Imran Ahmed Shah:Regarding Para 2, what is the liability on Registrar or Registry? Mary Wong:@Imran, Para 2 and the UDRP more generally does not provide for actions against a Registrar or Registry. These are largely provided for in their respective contracts with ICANN, which are enforced through ICANN's compliance department. Imran Ahmed Shah:well, but if a registrant has wrong intention or data provided, is s/he responsible individually or there is any additional responsibility of registrar to reconfirm? George Kirikos:This topic is somewhat conflated with immmunity, so it might be wise to wait until we've discused that. George Kirikos:Yes, Phil, plus volunteers are overloaded, so the prior schedule was probably ambitious. George Kirikos:We could even bump up the 1:30 stuff. George Kirikos:Since it's more related to standing. Lori Schulman:I agree with George's suggestion of shuffling the order of discussion. It is logical. George Kirikos:It's unfortunate that Paul Keating isn't here, as he put forth the 4th idea. George Kirikos:Here's the UNITAID case: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 George Kirikos:It wouldn't require govts to bring forth the case. George Kirikos:But, if IGOs didn't want to agree to mutual jurisdiction, that would be an option for them. George Kirikos:Because, just like UNIFEM, if the national govt decides not to act, the IGO has no choice at all, but *must* agree to enforce things in the courts. George Kirikos:Furthermore, it's entire consistent with Article 6ter, as it's the national governments who are signatories to the treaties. George Kirikos:It's the signatories to the treaties who have the obligations, no one else. George Kirikos:We could agree not to accomodate the IGOs at all, which I'd find acceptable. George Kirikos:The idea of the proxy complainant was just a way to accomodate, while still preserving the appeal rights of domain name registrants, thus balancing things. George Kirikos:(compared to the alternative of giving IGOs 100% of what they want, and depriving registrants of their rights, which IMHO is entirely unbalanced. George Kirikos:Paul Keating's alternative, of course, was the limited waiver, limiting the downside risk of mutual jurisdiction simply to the domain, and not legal costs, etc. George Kirikos:Do we know how many IGOs are eligible for .INT? George Kirikos:(not how many registered, but rather 'What's the universe...?') George Kirikos:+1 Kathy George Kirikos:Welcome, Kristine. Kristine Dorrain:Hi...I popped in for a little bit. No mic so I'll listen and type in the chat if I have something to add. George Kirikos:Kristine: you can dial in, 1-866-692-5726, code = IGO1 (or IGO2) George Kirikos:toll-free in North America Kristine Dorrain:Thanks...I need to use headphones bc people are sleeping at my house :) George Kirikos:As part of our charter, we were asked to: George Kirikos:Oops, nevermind. George Kirikos:Correct, Phil. It's a 'reserved list'. George Kirikos:It blocks any attempt to register in new gTLDs, regardless of how the domain would be used. K:Hi All, the "K" is me - Kathy Kleiman George Kirikos:So, eco.horse can't be registered, or eco.cars. K:http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4807:52zd7x.1.1 K:Link to Trademark Database K:of the US George Kirikos:That link won't work, Kathy -- you'd need to click on the TSDR, and link to that. George Kirikos:e.g. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000177&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=st… George Kirikos:(for UNESCO) Berry Cobb:https://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/intreg/intreg.pl Kristine Dorrain:You beat me to it Berry Berry Cobb:Quick draw McBerry K:I agree with Phil completely that .INT is likely an ancient and pre-ICANN criteria. George Kirikos:Probably right, Kathy. George Kirikos:Even the GAC criteria was somewhat ad hoc, but the .int ones would have been even more 'casual', as opposed to the rigour of this PDP. George Kirikos:The .int criteria at http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy Berry Cobb:To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name. Berry Cobb:https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt George Kirikos:RFC 1591 was from 1994. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt George Kirikos:If we believe in RFC 1591, it says "In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both parties." George Kirikos:That rejects the idea of the UDRP. :-) Kristine Dorrain:For .int. Its still an option for .com Kristine Dorrain:Presumably if IANA is reviewing .int applications, there isn't a lot of infringment. George Kirikos:Kritistine: That was for all com/net/org/int/edu-- it was 1994, pre-UDRP. Kristine Dorrain:Yes, that was originally the case. Berry Cobb:19 March, next Council meeting George Kirikos:Organizations with Observer Status of the UN qualified for .int, it seems. George Kirikos:http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/observers.shtml George Kirikos:Oddly, that might include the Holy See and Palestine. George Kirikos:It'd include these: http://www.un.org/en/members/intergovorg.shtml George Kirikos:some (all?) of which appear on the ICANN Reserved List (we'd have to cross-check them) George Kirikos:Conceivably we can use as a starting point the list provided by the GAC (which was our initial "scope"), and simply trim it, based on Article 6ter? George Kirikos:(i.e. we might be expanding our scope, if we go beyond the GAC list, i.e. the existing reserved list) Berry Cobb:http://www.statdns.com/files/zone.int Berry Cobb:retrienved June 2012. George Kirikos:11 mins until "lunch" break (or midnight break in Eastern time). George Kirikos:GAC cared enough to compel the ICANN Board to put all those names on the reserved list. George Kirikos:See ya in 45 mins. Mary Wong:Just FYI - the GNSO policy staff provides the GAC with monthly briefing papers on ongoing PDPs (including this one). We can work with Mason to ensure that this WG's communications/questions to the GAC are funneled through the most effective way. Alex:Thanks Mary Wong:We are breaking for 45 minutes - back in session at 13:15 Singapore time. Kristine Dorrain:Thanks. I'll try to be back but I have to work in the morning. Lori Schulman:I will call back in\ later. Lori Schulman:j/ts ,late here in DC but I will hang on as late as I cann George Kirikos:Are we all back yet? Steve Chan:Just about to reconvene George Kirikos:Great. Feeling sleepy and incoherent here, but will do my best to stick around until 4 am. Val Sherman:+1 George George Kirikos:Exactly, Phil. George Kirikos:WIPO maintains a list of cases at: George Kirikos:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ George Kirikos:however it's not complete. Probably under 1% of UDRP cases ever go to court. George Kirikos:I can't recall what we asked them, but do we know how the IGOs enforce their alleged rights in the offline world? George Kirikos:(e.g. someone sells UNESCO t-shirts, etc.) George Kirikos:I'm assuming that UNESCO can't compel the t-shirt seller to an international tribunal of their choosing, in that scenario. George Kirikos:Who is that proposal from? I can make my own 'wish list'.... :-) George Kirikos:I found an interesting Canadian case here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2011/2011nsca73/2011nsca73.html which discusses the nature and limits of IGO immunities. George Kirikos:8The foregoing analysis leads me to the conclusion that NAFO is not entitled to complete other [sic] absolute immunity from legal process in Canadian courts. Rather, NAFO is entitled to immunity from legal process to the extent, and only to the extent, that it can show that immunity in a particular case is "required for performance of its functions" George Kirikos:We should put this case in our wiki -- it has lots of interesting findings. George Kirikos:Actually, this case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and their ruling is at: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc66/2013scc66.html (still reading) George Kirikos:Bingo! " For NAFO to perform its functions, however, it does not require immunity from A's separation indemnity claim. The separation indemnity does not interfere with NAFO's functions. Indeed, NAFO recognizes that it owes a separation indemnity to A under its Staff Rules and concedes that the NAFO Immunity Order does not immunize it from A's claim. " George Kirikos:This is a demonstration that IGO immunity is not absolute. George Kirikos:NAFO, by the way, has www.nafo.int<http://www.nafo.int> George Kirikos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Atlantic_Fisheries_Organizat… George Kirikos:It's an IGO. Steve Chan:@George, I went ahead and added your two cases to the WIki George Kirikos:Important Language: However, no rule of customary international law confers immunity on international organizations. Instead, they derive their immunity from treaties, or in the case of smaller international organizations like NAFO, from agreements with host states. George Kirikos:This means that in countires outside the host country, they don't have immunity. George Kirikos:countries, even George Kirikos:Another important document: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/796050?sid=21105341349941&uid=2&uid=3… George Kirikos:That was a Supreme Court of Canada case, the highest court in the nation. George Kirikos:Another document showing it's not absolute, see: https://books.google.ca/books?id=kd9bIjlpVfcC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=igos+ab… George Kirikos:http://www.earthrights.org/blog/us-court-rejects-absolute-immunity-… George Kirikos:"In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, a U.S. court recently rejected the idea that international organizations enjoy absolute immunity from suit in the United States. " George Kirikos:(2010 case) George Kirikos:(I simply did a Google search for "IGO absolute immunity") (without the quotes) to find these cases. George Kirikos:For the Canadian cases, I searched on CanLII.org. George Kirikos:Organization of American States case -- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8BumVFgLIeoJ:www.oas.o… George Kirikos:" Article 133 of the OAS Charter provides that the Organization shall have "such legal capacity and privileges and immunities necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishment of its purposes." That immunity is clearly functional in scope. " Kathy:@Mary: could we please add to the notes that IGOs might already have agreed to the waiver of certain jurisdictional rights by virtue of their existing Registration contracts for domain names? Tx! Mary Wong:@Kathy, that's been brought up a few times in prior WG discussions, I believe. Kathy:@Mary: can we add it to the notes of what *we* will need to consider going forward. It seems quite key. George Kirikos:We also know they've expressly waived immunity, by bringing UDRP complaints. I.e. the World Bank case. George Kirikos:i.e. an IGO that brought a UDRP....imagine. Kathy:@George: exactly George Kirikos:That World Bank case was http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0222.html Kathy:@George, just checked it out. Good decision; good point. Mary Wong:The Unitaid and World Bank case were posted to the WG wiki following WG discussions several weeks ago; Steve has just added a new subsection for the question of absolute sovereign immunity to the same page. George Kirikos:Those same scams exist on domains that don't infringe marks, though. George Kirikos:Suppose I put up a phishing site for UNESCO on www.kjghkshg.biz<http://www.kjghkshg.biz> -- they can't file a UDRP in that case. How do they obtain relief? George Kirikos:Right, due process concerns should be paramount. George Kirikos:Val: actually, IGOs wouldn't be giving up their right of appeal. George Kirikos:They'd only be be saying they don't agree to mutual jurisdiction. George Kirikos:(they want to preserve absolute immunity from others launching appeals) Kathy:who is keeping track of all of these excellent questions being raised?? George Kirikos:The transcript/MP3 recording. Kathy:But it would be great to see the evolution of these questions in Notes section of our group document (to the right) Mary Wong:@kathy, we are keeping notes as you see, but we don't do live transcriptions, like the official ICANN scribes do and are qualified to do :) Mary Wong:The transcript and recording will be published when they're available, and we will flesh out the notes and questions based on reviewing these at that point (per usual WG practice). Kathy:OK, tx Mary George Kirikos:Are we still going for the next 2 hours? Mary Wong:@George, unlikely. George Kirikos:Ok. Approaching 2 am in the Eastern part of North America. Mary Wong:We're starting again George Kirikos:Yep, still here. George Kirikos:Hanging on. :-) Mary Wong:We appreciate it, George and everyone who's up so late! Jay Chapman:zzzz Jay Chapman:jk George Kirikos:hehe Jay. :-) George Kirikos:I hope those in Singapore have a safe trip home. Jay Chapman:Thanks everyone. Good day and good night! Safe travels home to all. Val Sherman:Thanks all! Philip Corwin:Thanks to all our WG members. George Kirikos:Is there a link to the survey? George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks All. Mary Wong:Good night all, thank you!

1 0

Reminder of meeting venue for the WG face to face meeting in Singapore
by Mary Wong Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Hello again everyone, For those WG members who are here in Singapore and joining the face-to-face full-day facilitated session in person, just in case you didn¹t see it in the remote participation/dial in details that were sent around by the Secretariat, please note that the meeting room will be INDIANA (near the South Tower entrance to the Fairmont). As noted in the updated agenda that was distributed, the session will begin at 9 a.m. Singapore time, and end at 5 p.m. Singapore time (with the scheduled breaks as noted in the agenda). 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] RESEND: Dial in details for remote participation for the IGO meetings ICANN Meeting Singapore > Thanks for the reminder, George, and thanks to the Secretariat for sending > round the dial in and remote participation details, as the setup will be > slightly different from our usual WG calls. > > To give everyone a sense of what our day will look like, I attach an updated > version of the draft agenda that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. The > updates in this version were made at the request of our co-chairs, after > consultation with the professional facilitator who will be assisting with our > 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 > > > > > From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> > Date: Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 20:48 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] RESEND: Dial in > details for remote participation for the IGO meetings ICANN Meeting Singapore > >> Hi folks, >> >> For those in North America, just a reminder that because of the international >> dateline, Friday Feb 13th @ 9 am in Singapore is actually the evening of >> *Thursday Feb 12th* for North Americans, i.e. see: >> >> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150213T09&p1=236… >> 2=179&p3=137 >> >> 9:00 am Singapore time on Friday = 8 pm NYC (Eastern) time on Thursday = 5 pm >> Los Angeles (Pacific) time on Thursday. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >>> >>> Friday 13 February F2F meeting >>> Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/crp/ >>> >>> Room: Indiana >>> >>> 09:00 10:30 (01:00 02:30 UTC): IGO1 >>> >>> 10:45 - 12:30 (02:45 04:30 UTC): IGO2 >>> >>> 13:30 15:30 (05:30 07:30 UTC): IGO3 >>> >>> 15:45 17:00 (07:45 09:00 UTC): IGO4 >>> >>> >>> Dial in numbers: >>> Country Toll NumbersFreephone/ >>> Toll Free Number >>> ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >>> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >>> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >>> BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 >>> CHILE 1230-020-2863 >>> CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >>> CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >>> COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >>> CROATIA 080-08-06-309 >>> CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >>> DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >>> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >>> FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 >>> FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >>> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >>> FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >>> GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >>> GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >>> HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >>> HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 >>> INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 >>> INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 >>> INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 >>> INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 >>> INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 >>> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >>> IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >>> ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >>> ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >>> ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 >>> ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 >>> JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 >>> JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 >>> LATVIA 8000-3185 >>> LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 >>> MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >>> MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL):52-33-3208-7310 >>> 001-866-376-9696 >>> MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 >>> MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 >>> NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >>> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >>> NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >>> PANAMA >>> 011-001-800-5072065 >>> PERU 0800-53713 >>> PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 >>> POLAND 00-800-1212572 >>> PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >>> ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 >>> RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >>> SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 >>> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 >>> SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >>> SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >>> SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >>> SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >>> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >>> TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >>> THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >>> TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 >>> UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >>> URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >>> USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >>> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> >>>

3 2

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] RESEND: Dial in details for remote participation for the IGO meetings ICANN Meeting Singapore
by George Kirikos Feb. 9, 2015

Feb. 9, 2015

Hi folks, For those in North America, just a reminder that because of the international dateline, Friday Feb 13th @ 9 am in Singapore is actually the evening of *Thursday Feb 12th* for North Americans, i.e. see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150213T09&p1=236… 9:00 am Singapore time on Friday = 8 pm NYC (Eastern) time on Thursday = 5 pm Los Angeles (Pacific) time on Thursday. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ > *Friday 13 February* – F2F meeting > > Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/crp/ > > *Room: Indiana* > > *09:00 – 10:30 *(01:00 – 02:30 UTC)*: IGO1* > > *10:45 - 12:30 *(02:45 – 04:30 UTC)*: IGO2* > > *13:30 – 15:30 *(05:30 – 07:30 UTC)*: IGO3* > > *15:45 – 17:00 *(07:45 – 09:00 UTC)*: IGO4* > > > *Dial in numbers:* > > *Country* > > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > 55-11-3958-0779 > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CROATIA > > > > > > 080-08-06-309 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > 36-1-700-8856 > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > BANGALORE: > > 91-80-61275204 > > INDIA > > MUMBAI: > > 91-22-61501629 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > ITALY > > ROME: > > 39-06-8751-6018 > > 800-986-383 > > ITALY > > TORINO: > > 39-011-510-0118 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7878-2631 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-6868-2631 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > 8002-9246 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > GUADALAJARA (JAL): > > 52-33-3208-7310 > > 001-866-376-9696 > > MEXICO > > MEXICO CITY: > > 52-55-5062-9110 > > 001-866-376-9696 > > MEXICO > > MONTERREY: > > 52-81-2482-0610 > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > 1800-111-42453 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > ROMANIA > > > > 40-31-630-01-79 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > 0800-002066 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > TURKEY > > > > > > 00-800-151-0516 > > UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > > > > > > 8000-35702370 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp >

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Draft for discussion/comparison (if UDRP is to be amended) - question
by Kathryn Kleiman Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

Hi All, Two questions: a) Does anyone know how many IGOs are involved in the definition that Heather and the GAC seek in their letter of 2013? b) if we are not trying to create additional legal rights, and if these IGOs have not invoked their rights under the treaties seeking to be recognized by national trademark offices, might we be overstepping our bounds in giving automatic UDRP protection to these IGOs (those who have not sought the protection)? Best and tx, Kathy p.s. from Mary's email below and Heather Dryden's letter: (b) an intergovernmental organization having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the United Nations General Assembly.² (taken from the letter enclosing the list, sent by the GAC Chair: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chal aby-annex1-22mar13-en.pdf.) -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:55 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Draft for discussion/comparison (if UDRP is to be amended) Hello George and all, As noted during the WG call today, WG members are kindly invited to continue to provide their feedback on the ³thought experiment² draft text that was circulated on 14 January, and again earlier today. This will enable the group to continue its substantive deliberations on this mailing list, in lieu of an agenda item on this topic at our meeting next week, and should hopefully provide some good points to circle back to when we meet face to face (including with our remote participants) in Singapore on 13 February. Thanks to George and Paul (in a separate email also sent to this list) for kicking off the discussion on this issue. FWIW here are a few staff notes and comments to George¹s feedback, numbered according to his comments. 1. George¹s very helpful and detailed analysis for Sub-Group B was posted to the WG wiki space upon receipt, and is available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mxbxAg. Also, as noted in the Adobe chat during the meeting, the GAC¹s criteria for including an IGO on their list, supplied to ICANN in 2013, was that it be "(a) an international organization established by a treaty and which possesses international legal personality; or (b) an intergovernmental organization having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the United Nations General Assembly.² (taken from the letter enclosing the list, sent by the GAC Chair: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chal aby-annex1-22mar13-en.pdf.) WG members may wish to note that in this letter the GAC also suggests that the list be reviewed prior to the delegation of any new gTLD in subsequent rounds, or every three years, whichever first occurs. As Phil noted on the call today, the WG will at some point need to discuss the differences between those IGOs that may be protected under whatever mechanism the WG recommends (should that be the case) and those listed by the GAC. 3. On the addition of the ³For avoidance of doubt² paragraph, the intention was to address the scope of a UDRP claim and the question of legitimate third party rights, rather than bad faith. In other words, it would not be enough for an IGO to simply show that the domain name complained of is identical or substantially similar to its name or acronym. Rather - and matching the scope of Article 6ter protections - the third party would not be permitted to register or use the domain name only if this implies a connection between it and the IGO. The language here is taken basically word for word from Article 6ter, and as George noted, may need some further tweaking and change, but that was the basic idea. We hope the above is helpful in clarifying some of the ongoing discussions within the WG. 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 -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 09:45 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Draft for discussion/comparison (if UDRP is to be amended) >With respect, this "thought experiment" is akin to my "Straw Poll" >earlier (which was deemed 'too early'), in that's jumping ahead to a >'solution', without first considering all the data, identifying whether >there's a real problem, etc. > >That being said, here are my thoughts: > >1. On October 28, 2014, in subgroup B I sent a detailed analysis >comparing the ICANN Reserved Names of IGOs list to the Article 6ter >database. Less than half (271 of 549) of the currently 'protected' IGO >reserved identifiers are even in the Article 6ter database! I'm not >sure if the spreadsheets were ever posted on the Wiki, but attached is >the analysis in HTML format (in the Subgroup, I also sent them in Excel >and OpenOffice formats). Thus, if we limit things to Article 6ter >marks, a lot of existing reserved names lose protection (perhaps >rightly so) 2. The amendment for 4(a)(i) is not necessary, since the >proposed change is already consistent with common law marks that IGOs >can currently assert. Furthermore, the proposed language is awkward. I >would rearrange it (if forced to -- I don't approve of any change) as: > > >4(a)(i): your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a >trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; or, >where the complainant is an international intergovernmental >organization whose name or abbreviation has been communicated, as >prescribed by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection >of Industrial Property, to the countries constituting the Union to >which the Convention applies (including Members of the World Trade >Organization to whom the Convention applies in accordance with Articles >1.3 and 2.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual >Property Rights), your domain name is identical or confusingly similar >to complainant's Article 6ter registered name or abbreviation; and > >(the slight change placed a semi-colon directly after "rights" as per >the existing UDRP language, and then added a fresh "or" directly after, >but then specific at the beginning the entities that the "or" >applied to, i.e. IGOs. > >3. In the language that begins with "For the avoidance of doubt" >(below 4(a)(iii)), it seems illogical. By definition, the domain name >is going to be "confusingly similar" if it's an identical match, so to >that that "the domain name shall NOT be regarded as confusingly similar >" (i.e. 4(a)(i))", the first prong of the UDRP 3-part test, doesn't >make sense. Instead, I believe what the text is trying to say is that >the domain name was not registered or being used "in bad faith" (the >3rd part of the 3-part test). So, the text would need to be rewritten >to clarify that part (i.e. it's not the first test -- it's the 2nd >and/or 3rd parts of the test). > >Furthermore, the language is dangerously unclear with its use of "use >or registration" .... "is not of such a nature". That can be >interpreted several ways, e.g. it might be interpreted to mean that an >IGO can pass the test if it shows just bad faith "use" OR >"registration", instead of both. In other words, it's not "avoiding the >doubt" enough! > >Furthermore, this is *not* sufficient language to protect registrants. >For example, the domain name might not yet be in use at all -- e.g. it >might be under construction, not resolving, etc. Rather than saying "is >probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the >existence of a connection.......", the "test" must be much stronger. >TO avoid the doubt, the IGO must prove that the registration AND the >use can only be of such a nature to actively impersonate the IGO in >question. I'm not sure that the language is "bulletproof" yet. > >4. For the amendments under 3(b)(viii) (the draft says 3(b)(vii), but >it is actually below 3(b)(viii)), there is no requirement that the IGO >discuss how their Article 6ter names/abbreviations are used. This is >something that would need to be communicated in a complaint, to allow >the respondent to know who the IGO is, what they do, etc. Recall that >these IGOs are generally obscure. Respondent needs to have enough >information in the complaint to mount a defence. Indeed, IGOs should be >compelled to include the full Article 6ter filing in their complaint >(which includes the date of the registration), since those generally >won't appear in national trademark databases. > >5. WIPO overview, draft 1.5. First, I would renumber it 1.12 (otherwise >all the other UDRP element overviews would need to get renumbered). >Also, I would instead suggest that WIPO overview 1.7 >*already* applies to IGOs (What needs to be shown for the complainant >to successfully assert common law or unregistered trademark rights) > >http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#17 > >"Consensus view: The complainant must show that the name has become a >distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or >services. " > >If we wanted to be consistent, better language might be: > >1.12: Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a name or >abbreviation that has been communicated under Article 6ter of the Paris >Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property? > >(notice I've changed the several words slightly, including 'Does' to >"Can"). The "discussion section can be changed in a similar manner). > >In conclusion, I don't think any changes are needed to the UDRP itself >(perhaps at best just the "WIPO Overview", i.e. improving education). >We need to step back and consider *why* we'd want to change the UDRP >-- is this just a 'political' thing, to be "seen to be doing >something", just for the sake of appeasing governments? If that's the >case, I don't think that's very proper for a technical policymaking >body. Instead, we should feel pressured to "do something" for "show", >but instead should be able to conclude that no changes whatsoever are >required, if that's where the *facts* lead us. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269 >http://www.leap.com/ > > >On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> Dear WG members, >> >> As a thought experiment, the WG co-chairs would like to offer the >>attached draft document for review and discussion by the WG. Since we >>have been looking at the 2007 draft text for a possible alternative >>dispute resolution procedure as a potential starting point for such a >>process (should the WG eventually decide on such a path), the >>co-chairs thought it would be helpful also for the WG to consider >>what might be a possible starting point for amending the UDRP (should >>that be the preferred option). >> >> The WG may wish to discuss this draft along with its further comments >>on the >> 2007 draft text. >> >> 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

4 6