October 2016 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Meeting date, time, location and remote participation details for our WG at ICANN57
by Mary Wong Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Dear all, As noted in Nathalie’s email (below), you will find information for all GNSO-related sessions (including that for our PDP Working Group) by clicking on the link for “GNSO Remote Participation details”. Our WG meeting is scheduled to be held on Monday 7 November, from 0900-1030 local Hyderabad time (India Standard Time). If you click on the tab for Monday, you’ll find the meeting time, location (for those attending in person), Adobe Connect link and telephone bridge passcode. For the dial-in number applicable to your location, please click the “Dial In Numbers (Audio Bridge)” tab. The first link provided by Nathalie will take you to the overall ICANN57 meeting schedule, where you can download (if you have Sched) information about any and all other sessions that may be of interest. One that you may wish to note is the GNSO’s Working Sessions on Friday 4 November, where our co-chairs will be giving an update on our work (from 1100-1130 IST). Note that all GNSO sessions are open to all. Thanks and cheers, and wishing all who are making the trip to Hyderabad safe travels, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 04:49 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN57: GNSO Remote Participation Details & Organization Dear all, In preparation for the GNSO sessions during ICANN57, please find below web and wiki links to attend meetings remotely. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: [icann562016.sched.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann562016.sched.org_…>ICANN5[icann572016.sched.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_…>7 Meeting Schedule[icann572016.sched.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_…> GNSO Remote Participation details[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a ³add to my schedule² option. Step 2 Navigate to the right hand side of the main schedule and follow instructions to download the ICANN57 Mobile App. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Glen de St Gery, Terri Agnew and Nathalie Peregrine will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

1 0

ICANN57: GNSO Remote Participation Details & Organization
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Dear all, In preparation for the GNSO sessions during ICANN57, please find below web and wiki links to attend meetings remotely. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: <https://icann562016.sched.org/>ICANN5<https://icann572016.sched.org/>7 Meeting Schedule<https://icann572016.sched.org/> GNSO Remote Participation details<https://community.icann.org/x/P4LDAw> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a ³add to my schedule² option. Step 2 Navigate to the right hand side of the main schedule and follow instructions to download the ICANN57 Mobile App. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Glen de St Gery, Terri Agnew and Nathalie Peregrine will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-wg-19oct16-en.mp3 On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Attendees: David Maher - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Mason Cole – RySG Neescha Vreeling (for Jim Bikoff) - IPC Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Reg Levy – RySG Apologies: ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wSC4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 20 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG on Thursday, 19 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:Is this the last call before the ICANN57 meeting? Reg Levy - MMX:by all of the gods, I sure hope so. George Kirikos::-) Mary Wong:Yes, no WG meeting till ICANN57 week George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Paul Tattersfield:THanks George, do you evr travel to ICANN meetings? Paul Tattersfield:ever George Kirikos:No, I've never been to one (and don't plan to attend either). George Kirikos:How about yourself? Paul Tattersfield:I went to a minor one in London a few years ago Philip Corwin:dialing in Mary Wong:@Phil, you're chairing today, yes? Philip Corwin:yes Michelle DeSmyter:Neescha Vreeling for Jim Bikoff is on audio only Mary Wong:Specifically, recs 2 & 3 from the proposal (bottom of page 2 and into page 3 of the document) Mary Wong:Sorry, page 2 and 3 of the proposal - it starts on page 4 in the display Mary Wong:Document is unsync'ed for scrolling George Kirikos:Should we do the planning first, perhaps? George Kirikos:+1 Phil George Kirikos:In relation to costs, WIPO recently (this week) announced a program to subsidize patent costs for those in developing countries, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.einnews.com_pr-5Fne… George Kirikos:So, perhaps "needy" IGOs might look to WIPO for subsidies. George Kirikos:(and perhaps some law firms would represent IGOs on a pro bono basis) George Kirikos:WIPO itself is well funded, but perhaps some IGOs are poorer. Paul Tattersfield:Agree with George there are a lot on non IGO orgnaizations who suffer similar problems outlined in the small group report and I think ICANN should be devoting resources to solving the issues for all rather than s small subset of entities George Kirikos:A public list of lawyers/law firms willing to do pro bono might be an "easy" route to try to accomondate their request. George Kirikos:(and help other needy complainants/respondents) George Kirikos:Here's the list of eligibility criteria for .INT: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_domains_i… Paul Tattersfield:As well as standing for URS (& UDRP) marks protected by statute or treaty are specfically catered for in the TMCH George Kirikos:Everyone considers themselves "special", though. George Kirikos:That's not something I find compelling. Mary Wong:@Phil, possibly, yes George Kirikos:It's better to use Article 6ter, rather than create a parallel ad hoc policy. Paul Tattersfield:they have to have standing if they are public facing George Kirikos:Article 6ter reflects international law/treaty. Ad hoc = making it up informally as we go along. Mary Wong:@George, as staff noted previously as well, Article 6ter can be viewed as not conferring substantive legal rights. George Kirikos:Under one interpretation....but, I think it's sufficient to meet the 1st test of the UDRP/URS, to give standing to use the procedures. George Kirikos:And common law (even without Article 6ter) is sufficient, too. Mary Wong:@George, that's the distinguishing point (of disagreement) - 6ter isn't based on substantive legal rights like trademark/common law rights; it's basically international comity agreeing to an initial form of protection. George Kirikos:I think 1.7 of the WIPO overview is sufficient, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_dom… (e.g. "media recognition") Paul Tattersfield:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tradem… Berry Cobb:Just as a reminder about the small group proposal, is that its scope only applies to New gTLDs and not the legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs. George Kirikos:1.7 even says "the availability of trademark-like protection" (suggesting that rights need not be exactly arising from TM law) Mary Wong:I will try to find a redlined version George Kirikos:#6 was there before. Paul Tattersfield:@Berry doesn't the Executive summary refere to all gTLDs? Mary Wong:We put Rec 6 in as more of a placeholder, really. Mary Wong:@Paul, I believe the proposal makes clear that it is only for New gTLDs? Paul Tattersfield:Why do you think they would do that Mary? Berry Cobb:I'm looking now. But the GAC advice that set all this in motion was only for New gTLDs. Mary Wong:The proposal says "It describes a process whereby an Eligible IGO (as defined in this Paper) may be notified of a third party registration of its acronym in a new gTLD launched under ICANN’s New gTLD Program, as well as the proposed establishment of appropriate dispute resolution processes to enable protection of an Eligible IGO’s acronym in appropriate circumstances in all gTLDs." Mary Wong:I stand corrected, Paul - it is the preventive part that is for New gTLDs Petter Rindforth:Yes, I think it is the best way to proceed right now George Kirikos:Can staff send out invites for the ICANN57 meetings when they're available? (with the links, and times) I think the time zone differences are very odd, so it'd help folks to not have to navigate the website) Mary Wong:@George, we will George Kirikos:(the remote participation won't be via this Adobe room, by the way; folks will have to use a different Adobe link) George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. George Kirikos:Perhaps talking about the workarounds (assignment, licensing) "live" might be helpful, to help bridge the gap with any IGOs in attendance there, as that goes to the crux of their concerns over immunity. George Kirikos:I know the new gTLD registries are upset about all the blocking, so hopefully they'll be in attendance, as we move to a solution in our work. Petter Rindforth:Mary - i presume that we can use the main part of our previous general initial presentation to start with Paul Tattersfield:Agree Phil Mary Wong:We will circulate an updated Section 6 next week, with the chairs' input - and hopefully a Deliberations draft; but we agree with Phil; we suggest that the Deliberations draft more likely be for "internal" WG review to make sure staff has captured the main points. George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute George Kirikos:So, December? Or earlier that week? George Kirikos:Using the mailing list, etc. seems a good idea to me. Mary Wong:Oh, please note - ICANN is closed the week between Christmasa nd New Year Mary Wong::) Jay Chapman:thanks all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye

1 0

Agenda and reminder about IGO small group proposal for the next meeting
by Mary Wong Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for Thursday 20 October at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of IGO small group proposal (please see further notes below) 3. Review likely preliminary recommendations in light of discussion of Agenda Item #2 4. Planning for ICANN57 open Working Group meeting 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, you may recall that staff created a Google Doc of the small group proposal at the Working Group’s request. As the intention was for members to provide comments (preferably in the document, prior to the call) that would facilitate a “line by line” discussion of the proposal, we are recirculating the document in case you wish to insert comments at this time. Please make any comments in the document before 1400 UTC tomorrow if at all possible, to allow others to review your notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vfOmKoPBIhTnzy2ffuUUO6rS4jPgV48ddXU7AoG… (our Working Group focus will be primarily on Proposal #2 and Proposal #3 in the document). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

- Board reply letter as Google Doc - For WG review and comment
by Steve Chan Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

Dear WG Members, As requested on the WG’s call on 13 October, staff has converted the Board response to the GNSO Council and made it available for comments as a Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vfOmKoPBIhTnzy2ffuUUO6rS4jPgV48ddXU7AoG…. As agreed on the call, please review and provide comment prior to the WG’s next call on 20 October. Note, the original PDF (attached) was converted from PDF to Word, then used to generate a Google Doc. I’ve skimmed the Google Doc and it appears I’ve addressed at least most of the conversion quirks, but please let me know if I’ve missed any that impact your review of the document. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/?fref=ts http://gnso.icann.org/en/

3 2

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG on Thursday, 13 October 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-crp-pdp-13oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-crp-pdp-13oct16-en.mp3> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Attendees: George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Lori Schulman - IPC Mason Cole – RySG Nischa Vreeling (for Jim Bikoff) - IPC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Apologies: Paul Keating - NCUC Reg Levy - RySG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_…> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-hi4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 13 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG on Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, hello! Petter Rindforth:Hi George & Michelle George Kirikos:Hi Michelle & Petter. Paul Tattersfield:Hi George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Paul Tattersfield:Quiet day today Mary Wong:The proposal starts on Page 3 of the PDF Philip Corwin:When Petter concludes I'd like to speak first to provide background on GNSO Council discussions of this Proposal Lori Schulman:Hi George Kirikos:Welcome Lori. Lori Schulman:I don't have audio yet. Lori Schulman:waiting... Paul Tattersfield:Peter is just reading the letter from the small group proposal Lori Schulman:I have audio now. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Hi Osvaldo. George Kirikos:Proposal #1 is not within our PDP's scope (it's not curative). Should our charter be amended to comment on it? George Kirikos:(#1 is preventative) Mary Wong:@George, I don't believe so - that is the subject of a completed PDP and the GNSO has a different process to deal with amendments to that. Lori Schulman:I think that 1 is related because it goes to the basis of the CRP so we could comment on it. Our comments on 6ter do cover it unless I am missing something. 6ter is not trademark law but trademark registries are used to implement Lori Schulman:Agree with Petter on this point. Mary Wong:@Petter, I can answer that Paul Tattersfield: It’s useful to have point 1 in the proposals as it gives the proposal completeness Mary Wong:@George, the IGO names will be protected according to the recommendations of the original PDP WG. George Kirikos:@Mary: It was my expectation that the IGO names themselves on the reserved list would disappear (i.e. the reserved list would be sunsetted at some point). Mary Wong:@George, no - the original PDP confirmed that IGO full names will be reserved at the second level George Kirikos:@Mary: Wouldn't that encourage gaming, then, since IGOs would be incentivized to change their names to their acronyms??!!?? George Kirikos:(i.e. change "United Nations" to "UN" and thus reserve "UN" in all TLDs) Mary Wong:The names are what is on the GAC list, unless amended by the GAC George Kirikos:Agree, Phil. George Kirikos:#2 and #3 are fully handled by the UDRP & URS respectively, via the assignee, agent, licensee routes, etc. Paul Tattersfield:Exactly George, ICANN should concentrate on providing mechanisms for all groups not selected or promoted groups/interests. Lori Schulman:Just want to repeat that Agency is not workable solution. License maybe. Only assignment works and that is not a business model that IGO's follow. George Kirikos:@Mary: But don't those recommendations (for full names) only apply to new gTLDs? Whereas our work also includes legacy gTLDs? George Kirikos:(i.e. I don't think that reserved list applies to .com) Paul Tattersfield:yes George Berry Cobb:@George, the 2nd level reservations for full names applies to ALL gTLDs (new & Legcy) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou… Mary Wong:@George, that is correct - and is one of the follow on sub questions I alluded to. George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_… <<-- confirms it is for new gTLDs Mary Wong:i.e. meshing recormmendations for: (1) all IGOs versus IGOs on the GAC list, and (2) New gTLD mechanisms versus all gTLDs Berry Cobb:@ George, that is because the recommendations from that first PDP have not been implemented yet. Once done, that Spec 5 list will change, and also will become policy advisories for legacy TLDs. Mary Wong:But the Full Names policy will apply to all gTLDs Mary Wong:(as Berry has just noted) George Kirikos:Amusingly, some of the IGO acronyms collide, e.g. World Trade Organization, World Tourism Organization = WTO :-) Paul Tattersfield:I think the proposal is helpful because it sets out clearly what the IGOs & GAC want and most of that can easily be dealt with within the current UDRP & URS mechanisms Jay Chapman:+1 Paul Paul Tattersfield:I think we should deal with the proposal first, line by line and see how it can be implemented Paul Tattersfield:URS? Paul Tattersfield:Isn’t that what URS is for? George Kirikos:Right, Paul. Mary Wong:@Petter, yes, that's another example - hence our suggestion that we take a closer look at the scope of the proposals. George Kirikos:I think Phil's hand is new. Mary Wong:And mine was vestigial :) Mary Wong:@Paul T, just saw your suggestion. We can convert the document for that purpose, to Word or Google doc. George Kirikos:Those are just weak rephrasings of the UDRP/URS, as Phil says. Jay Chapman:agree Phil Mary Wong:@Phil, that will be an EXCELLENT point to make, esp in Hyderabad when you and Petter present the initial recommendations to the community George Kirikos:It'll be done when it's done. George Kirikos:Now that the IGO small group has made a proposal, any chance they'd be amenable to participating in a call with us? Or do we interpret their report as a desire to not work with us? (i.e. we just shoot competing written reports back/forth)? Philip Corwin:We can certainly describe our likely recommendations in Hyderabad, even if final text is not ready because of the need to respond in detail to the IGO Proposal. George Kirikos:(they do seem to have observers to our mailing list, although no active participants within it) George Kirikos:Sounds good, Petter. Philip Corwin:I don't see any need rto specifically invite them to present to us. They are free to attend and to make comments. Paul Tattersfield:Agree Petter, I think we should hold off on the report if necessary we have fully dealt with the small group proposal George Kirikos:Are we at 1 pm (Eastern time) next week too? George Kirikos:Bye folks. Osvaldo Novoa:Bye Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

REMINDER: Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en%5d> Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Updated Section 6 of draft Initial Report, and possible time change
by Mary Wong Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Working Group members, Staff has updated the Section 6 (draft preliminary recommendations) document based on the last Working Group call. Please see attached for the changes. For the meeting this Thursday, the proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss the “small group” proposal (received by the GNSO on 6 October 2016) and its implications on the Working Group’s preliminary recommendations 3. Review the policy options in the updated document based on the outcome of discussions of Agenda Item #2 4. Planning for ICANN57 5. Next steps/next meeting PLEASE NOTE: Due to a new scheduling conflict, it is possible that our meeting time this Thursday as well as next Thursday (20 October) may have to be changed. If the change is needed, the Working Group call will then start an hour later (at 1700 UTC). However, please do not amend your calendars just yet - staff will attempt to confirm this as soon as possible – please look out for a notice tomorrow (Wednesday) if there is a need to make a time change. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

FW: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
by Mary Wong Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear WG members, As mentioned on the WG call earlier today, the Board’s reply to the GNSO Council enclosing the final “small group” proposal on IGO acronyms has just been sent. A copy is enclosed for your review and further discussion. Staff will work with Petter and Phil to confirm the agendas for our next two meetings before ICANN57, in light of our receipt of this proposal and the status of the WG’s ongoing discussions over preliminary recommendations. Cheers Mary From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 17:02 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Markus Kummer <markus.kummer(a)board.icann.org>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>, "board-ops-team(a)icann.org" <board-ops-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Dear Councilors, Please find attached the ICANN Board’s reply to the GNSO Council’s letter of 31 May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The letter also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was worked on by the IGO “small group” of IGO, Board and GAC representatives, facilitated by ICANN staff as appropriate. We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC. Best regards, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

4 7

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 06 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-06oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-06oct16-en.mp3> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Attendees: David Maher - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Jim Bikoff - IPC Lori Schulman - IPC Mason Cole – RySG Paul Keating - NCUC Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Phil Corwin - BC Reg Levy – RySG Apologies: David Maher – PIR Petter Rindforth - IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Emily Barabas Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_…> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DBK4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 06 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG on Thursday, 06 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. George Kirikos: Hi folks. Mary Wong: Hi George! George Kirikos: Hi Mary. How are you today? Mary Wong: Not too bad, how about yourself? George Kirikos: I'm fine, thanks. Just a few more hours until the big baseball game begins (my Toronto Blue Jays are playing the Texas Rangers). Mary Wong: I guess that's a big game? (not much of a baseball fan, even after living in the US for over a decade!) George Kirikos: It's the first game of the American League division playoffs......still a way off for the World Series, though. George Kirikos: On Tuesday, the Jays had a dramatic win in the wild card game, to get to this stage. George Kirikos: Hi Michelle. Mary Wong: Nice! Philip Corwin: trying to call in George Kirikos: Lori said she'll be 30 mins late. George Kirikos: (due to a conflict with another meeting) Paul Tattersfield: Sorry I'm late George Kirikos: Welcome, Paul. Jay Chapman: Hello, Sorry not on the line, just on abobe (wihtout a mic) Michelle DeSmyter: would you like a dial out Jay? Mary Wong: THe options are on Page 11 of the new draft Jay Chapman: yes, i will use that. thanks, Michelle George Kirikos: There was red text in the DOCX file sent earlier in the week. Jay Chapman: I made some additional comments earlier today on the Google doc version of the draft - things I've been thinking about for a while Mary Wong: @Jay, thank you - we will take a look at the Google doc and incorporate your changes George Kirikos: It looks fine to me. Paul Tattersfield: An aside: It would be really helpful if the number of pages / page length in the emailed documents could be the same as the ones in the document window Mary Wong: @Paul T, I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy -that may be an AC issue George Kirikos: If it's published as a PDF, that might make it less prone to having differences in pagination, etc. George Kirikos: (it was a DOCX that was sent to the mailing list) George Kirikos: The file in the window here is a PDF. Paul Tattersfield: Mary I think its to do with differing page lengths in the .docx and .pdf document formats. It makes it difficult to jump in and out fo the emailsed documents during the call as speakers refer to the page they are viewing George Kirikos: Monday was the deadline for additional comments. Jay Chapman: nor worries, Mary - understand. i made them earlier today George Kirikos: We could perhaps quote the exact language here: http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/article_6ter.html George Kirikos: "uch 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." George Kirikos: "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 " Paul Tattersfield: they don't need to register for 6 ter for protection George Kirikos: Although, I guess the language appears directly below the Rec #3 (albeit unquoted). Paul Tattersfield: its the fact they are known by their name and they supply goods or services is sufficient. 6ter is just one ofrm of evidence of that standing George Kirikos: The 1(c) seems to be be about impersonation of the IGO by someone else, to prevent that. Other uses, where there's no impersonation, should be ok (as long as there's no implied connection, etc.). Reg Levy - MMX: awake! George Kirikos: Reg has her hand up. George Kirikos: It wouldn't be a replacement/substitute. George Kirikos: It's a curative right, vs. a preventive right. Paul Tattersfield: that is currative George Kirikos: It's supposed to go away, after our work, I believe. Reg Levy - MMX: I understand that they're different but they are overlapping and one would be unnecessary if the other existed. Reg Levy - MMX: Currently, we do block most, though. George Kirikos: Not really, Reg, since the reserve list only applies to new gTLDs. Our work applies to legacy ones, too. Reg Levy - MMX: That's fair. Neither applies to ccTLDs. Berry Cobb: @George, the reservations of IGO/INGOs is for all gTLDs all of which is yet to be implemented. George Kirikos: Furthermore, IGOs might be interested in many other variations of the names, beyond those currently reserved. e.g. "UNESCO.TLD" might be reserved, but UNESCOSTORE.TLD, etc. George Kirikos: would still need to be dealt with via curative rights mechanisms. Berry Cobb: but you are correct that the Spec5 list as it sits today only applied to New gTLDs Reg Levy - MMX: "has yet to be implemented"? All gTLDs I know block them George Kirikos: Not .com. If ECO.COM dropped, it would be able to be re-registered. Berry Cobb: Yes, there is an IGO/INGO IRT to implement thos recommendations that were approved by the Board in 2014. George Kirikos: Some of the reserved names were even unregistered in .com (the long awful ones). Reg Levy - MMX: Allowing IGO/NGO access to URS/UDRP makes more sense to me than reserving some of the epically long SLDs Berry Cobb: Acronyms are still outstanding and are to be considered by the small group that Phil just referred to. Paul Tattersfield: There is no requirement under UDRP to register a TM or list it using 6ter for standing to bring an action, all registration and 6ter listing does is provide public notice of the rights Berry Cobb: This is the reconciliation process between the GNSO Recs and the GAC Advice. George Kirikos: Reg: they already have access to the URS/UDRP. :-) They raised the issue, though, about immunity concerns preventing them from using it...although, it turns out to have been overdramatized. George Kirikos: I agree with you, Reg, that there shouldn't be a reserved list. George Kirikos: (i.e. it penalizes everyone, including those who might have a fair use for the string, e.g. ECO.TLD). Lori Schulman: Hi Reg Levy - MMX: Just frustrated that they get all these benefits and something like "eco.fashion" can't be sold to someone who no one is going to relate to the Economic Cooperation Organization Lori Schulman: Sorry to be so late, I had the old Adobe room not the new Adobe room address Reg Levy - MMX: Thanks for the information, George :) Lori Schulman: Reg's point is valid. Trademark protection is about context. Lori Schulman: and formulas remove context George Kirikos: It represents a prior restraint on speech. George Kirikos: (i.e. the reserved lists) Jay Chapman: That's a good suggestion, Phil Lori Schulman: The crux of all of our contention is how to create context when formulaic responses are required George Kirikos: I disagree with that new language, since they could always use an assignee, licensee, etc. Reg Levy - MMX: UDRP/URS seems to do that; why isn't that sufficient? George Kirikos: The reserved list was a bad rushed "solution" that proponents of new GTLDs accepted, just to get the program approved. George Kirikos: Perhaps IGOs could get a subsidy of the Donuts DPML, etc. Reg Levy - MMX: agreed it was bad and rushed—but does that mean it is up for reevaluation and is that what we're doing? Reg Levy - MMX: I would be okay allowing them access to the MPML George Kirikos: Even the collision lists are slowly being removed. Reg Levy - MMX: even for .home and .corp?? ^.^ George Kirikos: hehe You saw my CircleID article on that (those should probably be kept reserved). I was talking about 2nd-level collisions, rather than top level ones. ;-) Lori Schulman: The collision lists hurt brandowners too Lori Schulman: I prefer Ms. George Kirikos: We've not seen a huge amount of cybersquatting in the new gTLDs, so to the extent the reserved list was created in anticipation of that, those fears turned out to be overblown. Reg Levy - MMX: AGREEEEE George Kirikos: It's interesting that this GAC letter comes after September 30th....makes me wonder if the NTIA transition was preventing it, or .....? George Kirikos: (i.e. if it's anti-free speech, etc., that would have exposed the transition to criticism, if these governments overeach) Mary Wong: @George, from my exchanges with Board Operations support colleagues, I don't think so. I think it was a matter of getting Board clearance while everyone was focused on the transition. George Kirikos: Thanks, Mary. George Kirikos: +1 Jay Paul Keating: I agree completely with Jay's comment George Kirikos: That's why many moons ago, when the "assignee" option was first explored, I asked whether our PDP was essentially done. (check the email archives) :-) Lori Schulman: In response to Jay, you could say "alleged infringing conduct" Lori Schulman: or "conduct of concern" Paul Tattersfield: Lori, did you hear back from Brian on assignment? Lori Schulman: Yes, I raised my hand to discuss. I am in the queue George Kirikos: December 2014: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html :-) Mary Wong: Thanks to all - this guidance is very helpful as staff was trying to figure out what exactly are the risks here for both IGOs and the registrant. George Kirikos: As Paul Keating pointed out, the IGOs could have also solved the issue by us defining the extent to which the "immunity" applied, i.e. just limited to the domain name, and not to other things like costs, etc. Lori Schulman: To Paul's point, not simple clerical solutions, need holding companies, written agreements, etc. George Kirikos: But, they were not amenable to that. George Kirikos: @Lori: Simple written agreement, like UNITAID. George Kirikos: Didn't need a holding company --- could just get a 1 page letter. George Kirikos: UNITAID could provide a template for IGOs to use. Lori Schulman: UNITAID? George Kirikos: Lori: see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html Mary Wong: We will rewrite these points as best we can following the points made today. Lori Schulman: A simple letter could be seen as a glass shield not a steel shelf George Kirikos: I emailed you about the UNITAID stuff, too, I think, re: the licensing (although UNITAID was about assignment) George Kirikos: Here's the UNITAID case: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 Paul Keating: Lori, yes, but it can be a simple assignment of claims and a right to prosecute Mary Wong: Maybe we should add some text acknowledging that these alternatives involve some additional organizational decision/involvement on the part of the IGO - to clarify that we considered these. George Kirikos: Interesting, I had pointed out the licensee language in 2014, too, in that email! http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000220.html George Kirikos: (then forgot about it, but then rediscovered it again afterwards) Lori Schulman: got it Paul Keating: lori pls email me at paul(a)law.es Lori Schulman: lschulman(a)inta.org Paul Tattersfield: thanks Lori, pity there wasn't more time for this important matter Lori Schulman: No worries, we will reconnect. I just sent my contact details. I need to sign off. I have a meeting with my CEO. ciao George Kirikos: @Lori: my Sept 15th email to you discussed the UNITAID stuff, too. Jay Chapman: Thanks, everyone! George Kirikos: Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield: Thanks all bye Reg Levy - MMX: thanks, all!

1 0