December 2016 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Next steps for our Working Group and our Initial Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

Hello everyone, As Phil notes, the Working Group members who were on the call that just ended have agreed on the following timeline for the publication of our Initial Report: · Thursday 22 December 2016 – deadline for submitting any other comments or edits you may have on the draft that was circulated (attached again here as a PDF document). Please send your comments and edits to this email list to allow all other members to view them, and to ensure that we do not lose anyone’s comments on what is a fairly long document. · End of first week of January 2017 – staff to circulate an updated version of the draft, as a proposed final version of the Initial Report. · End of second week of January 2017 (7 days from circulation of the proposed final document) – deadline for Working Group members to send final comments (which are expected to be mostly typographical or editorial at that stage). · Beginning of third week of January 2017 (latest) – staff to publish Initial Report for public comment, for the minimum mandatory 40-day period (note that the Working Group can decide to extend the duration of the comment period if there is a request from the community to do so) · Late February 2017 – close of public comment period (unless extended). · 11-16 March 2017 – ICANN58 in Copenhagen; Working Group to hold open session to discuss its review of public comments and any potential changes to its preliminary recommendations with the community. · Following ICANN58 – Working Group to complete Final Report and submit it to the GNSO Council for the Council’s review and action. The Working Group co-chairs will determine, in consultation with staff and the Working Group, whether to hold a webinar (i.e. an information session) 2-3 weeks after the publication of the Initial Report, to explain the preliminary recommendations and take questions from the community. The Working Group co-chairs will also determine the date of the next Working Group meeting. This is likely to occur toward the end of the public comment period, unless a number of substantive comments are sent in early on. Thanks to everyone for all the work that has gone into this PDP – staff would like to take this opportunity to also wish you all a very happy new year! Cheers Mary From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, December 16, 2016 at 01:35 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call No need to, Lori, as the call just ended. Staff will be circulating an email on next steps and publication plans. All WG members will have until one week from today, 12/22, to suggest any final edits of the draft, and should do so by email to the entire list. Best regards, 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: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:14 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call I have 2 working group calls scheduled at the same time. I will try to jump on to the last half of the CRP call. Happy Holiday! Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DgMFAg&…> Find us on: [escription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DgM…> [escription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [escription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [escription: Description: pnpb_sig.png] ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=…> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

4 6

LAST CALL for comments on Draft Initial Report (Re: Next steps for our Working Group and our Initial Report)
by Mary Wong Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

With thanks to George and Paul, please be sure to send any other comments and suggestions you may have on the draft Initial Report by close of business Los Angeles time today, 22 December 2016. Staff will collate all the comments, do our best to integrate and incorporate, and circulate a proposed final draft by the end of the first week of January 2017 (as agreed). Wishing you and yours a happy festive season and New Year, Mary and Steve From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 12:23 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Next steps for our Working Group and our Initial Report Regarding Paul Tattersfield's comments for Page 3, I think the second part of the wording should stand. i.e. for "might own trademarks" vs. "may have registered trademarks" we should lean towards the current wording, because (a) unregistered trademarks were still protected via UDRP/URS, and (b) one of the main conclusions in this PDP was to clarify that even Article 6ter registrations would/should satisfy the standing requirements of the UDRP/URS, and strictly speaking those aren't always exactly equivalent to trademarks (they're more of a limited blocking right). Or, perhaps the wording could change from "might own trademarks" to "might have trademarks" (i.e. to cover both registered and unregistered scenarios more clearly, if "ownership" implies registered marks alone). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgMFaQ&…> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: Page 3 Executive Summary – 2nd paragraph Last sentence In addition, both processes were originally designed to be mechanisms to protect the rights of trademark owners, and while some IGOs and INGOs might own trademarks in either their organizational names or acronyms or both, this is not necessarily true in all cases. Suggested new wording In addition, both processes were designed to be mechanisms to protect the marks of rights holders, and while some IGOs and INGOs may have registered trademarks in either their organizational names or acronyms or both, this is not necessarily true in all cases. Notes: 1) Remove the word ‘originally’ as the process has not changed since inception. 2) UDRP and URS are designed to protect the marks of all rights holders by preventing the underlying goods and services from being infringed. This is an incredibly important distinction and failing to understand and make this distinction has real world inequitable consequences. 3) Again the words “might own trademarks” is misleading in this context and should be replaced with “may have registered”. A further few minor changes: Page 10 [Capitalization] 4. The WG found that, as of end-2015, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) list of non-governmental organizations in consultative status consists of nearly 4,000 organizations, of which 147 organizations were in general consultative status, 2,774 in special consultative status, and 979 on the Roster. The WG notes that there might be many more organizations not presently on the ECOSOC list who might claim the right to utilize any new curative rights process created for INGOs. The WG felt that the sheer scale of INGOs, in combination with the factors cited above, weighed against the creation of a special DRP for INGOs. especially as they could not be readily differentiated from other private parties, including other non-profit organizations. Page 12 [Plural/singular] Subsequently, interim second-level protections for certain RC and IOC and for a specific list of IGO names and acronyms provided by the GAC was granted in response to advice from the GAC. It is important to note that the second-level protections noted above were granted on an interim basis to allow new gTLDs to begin launching while policy development and consultations continued on the topic of what would be the appropriate second level protections for RC and IOC names and acronyms, and IGO acronyms. Page 18 [Singular/plural] For example, certain jurisdictions may have legislative language which limit the extent of IGO jurisdictional immunity to the “privileges and immunities as are reasonably necessary for the fulfilment of their functions”. Page 29 [Remove comma] The WG’s agreed text for its preliminary recommendation, the two options under consideration, and further elaboration on the nature of Professor Swaine’s expert views44, are set out in fuller detail under Recommendation #4 in Section 2, above. Page 32 [Spelling] In June 2015, the co-chairs of this WG met with the GAC Chair and two GAC vice-chairs at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss the progress of work on IGO curative rights protections and to encourage participation in the WG by GAC members; agin, no GAC member elected to become a WG member. In July 2015, representatives of the IGO Small Group Page 34 [Add space] The following is a comparative table showing the differences between the specific details of the IGO Small Group Proposal concerning curative rights and the WG’s agreed preliminary recommendations following its review of the Proposal, as well as notes on the WG’s rationale for its decisions. The community is invited to comment on the recommendations and notes, and all input provided will be taken into account by the WGin preparing its final recommendations. On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone, As Phil notes, the Working Group members who were on the call that just ended have agreed on the following timeline for the publication of our Initial Report: • Thursday 22 December 2016 – deadline for submitting any other comments or edits you may have on the draft that was circulated (attached again here as a PDF document). Please send your comments and edits to this email list to allow all other members to view them, and to ensure that we do not lose anyone’s comments on what is a fairly long document. • End of first week of January 2017 – staff to circulate an updated version of the draft, as a proposed final version of the Initial Report. • End of second week of January 2017 (7 days from circulation of the proposed final document) – deadline for Working Group members to send final comments (which are expected to be mostly typographical or editorial at that stage). • Beginning of third week of January 2017 (latest) – staff to publish Initial Report for public comment, for the minimum mandatory 40-day period (note that the Working Group can decide to extend the duration of the comment period if there is a request from the community to do so) • Late February 2017 – close of public comment period (unless extended). • 11-16 March 2017 – ICANN58 in Copenhagen; Working Group to hold open session to discuss its review of public comments and any potential changes to its preliminary recommendations with the community. • Following ICANN58 – Working Group to complete Final Report and submit it to the GNSO Council for the Council’s review and action. The Working Group co-chairs will determine, in consultation with staff and the Working Group, whether to hold a webinar (i.e. an information session) 2-3 weeks after the publication of the Initial Report, to explain the preliminary recommendations and take questions from the community. The Working Group co-chairs will also determine the date of the next Working Group meeting. This is likely to occur toward the end of the public comment period, unless a number of substantive comments are sent in early on. Thanks to everyone for all the work that has gone into this PDP – staff would like to take this opportunity to also wish you all a very happy new year! Cheers Mary From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, December 16, 2016 at 01:35 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call No need to, Lori, as the call just ended. Staff will be circulating an email on next steps and publication plans. All WG members will have until one week from today, 12/22, to suggest any final edits of the draft, and should do so by email to the entire list. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:14 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call I have 2 working group calls scheduled at the same time. I will try to jump on to the last half of the CRP call. Happy Holiday! Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408<tel:(202)%20704-0408>, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DgMFAg&…> Find us on: [scription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DgM…> [scription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [scription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [scription: Description: pnpb_sig.png] ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=…> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat from IGO-INGO CRP PDP call on Thursday, 15 December 2016 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-15dec16-en.mp3 On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec 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 - RySG George Kirikos - Individual Jay Chapman - Individual Mason Cole - RySG Phil Corwin - BC Petter Rindforth - IPC Nat Cohen - BC Apologies: Lori Schulman - IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan 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/ Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 15 December 2016 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:I like the rabbit and turtle status indicators. :-) George Kirikos:I found a way to crash the Adobe software --- pasting an emoji into this window. Mary Wong:The actual text of the report is "only" about 47 pages; the Swaine memo takes up a substantial chunk of the rest :) Terri Agnew:finding the echo Terri Agnew:As reminder if on the telephone you can press start 6 to mute/unmute phone George Kirikos:*6 George Kirikos:(unless the * is no longer needed??) Petter Rindforth:And thank you for an excellent co-work!! Terri Agnew:you are correct star 6 to mute/unmute Mary Wong:@George, thanks - those are always helpful! George Kirikos:RIght now, the footnotes have been renumbered, so they're different from the Swaine report. Steve Chan:@George, the edits to the footnotes were not intentional - Word just updated them dynamically.. Again, thanks for pointing out though. George Kirikos:But, if it a new section was created, the footnotes can begin at 1. Petter Rindforth:Perfect! George Kirikos:@Steve: but, it looks like they've since been updated, i.e. "Supra footnote 7" might now be "Supra footnote 76". So, it should be reverted back to Swaine's numbering. Mary Wong:It will be helpful (preferable) if people can email the list with their suggestions instead of doing a direct edit. With such a long document, if we have multiple editors it could get messy version-wise, and we may lose a few comments in the confusion. Steve Chan:Understood. We'll make sure it's captured unedited. Mary Wong:Just tell us the page number (PDF or Word version), no need to say line or paragraph - we'll find it :) Petter Rindforth:One week should be enogh George Kirikos:We should send a note to the mailing list with the deadline date for tweaks/comments/edits. George Kirikos:We only need to read the first 50 or so pages (i.e. don't need to check the Swaine report). Mary Wong:Will do, George George Kirikos:Phil and I are competing for the gold star for perfect attendance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… :-) Terri Agnew:Welcome Nat Cohen Nat Cohen:Thanks. Sorry for joining late Petter Rindforth:Sorry, have to leave now. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!! George Kirikos:A webinar would give us something to do in January, rather than twiddling our thumbs. :-) George Kirikos:Mary has her hand up. George Kirikos:*had :-) Mary Wong:No worries, George :) Thanks Mary Wong:Was just going to note that the GNSO Council might welcome an informational session, as the overall manager of the PDP and given the nature ofthis topic. George Kirikos:Happy Holidays, folks! Jay Chapman:thanks, everyone Mary Wong:Thanks, everyone, for all your work and for being a pleasure to work with! Mary Wong:Will do, Phil Nat Cohen:Happy Holidays to all! Mary Wong:Likewise, Phil - and to everyone!

1 0

My apologies for today's call
by Lori Schulman Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

I have 2 working group calls scheduled at the same time. I will try to jump on to the last half of the CRP call. Happy Holiday! Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> Find us on: [Description: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA8566DC2514] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [Description: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

2 1

Agenda for today and draft report
by Mary Wong Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear all, The draft Initial Report is now available in PDF format from our Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw. As noted previously, the call today is expected to be relatively short, to focus on any remaining issues or gaps that Working Group members believe need addressing in the Initial Report. Thanks again for the comments – we will collate them as they come in, including on the call today, and make the changes as well as check for consistency in the next version. Cheers Mary From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 21:58 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ext] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Initial Report Hi Mary, Looks good, couple of minor formattting errors with the word format 1) Cover page header is missing in some views and missaligned on others 2) Contents page has a couple of longer items are overshooting the page width Best regards, Paul On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks very much George; we will be sure to fix the typos and formatting in the final version. We will also post a PDF version shortly for convenience. Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2016, at 07:56, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: > > George--- > > Good catch on the Swaine footnotes. I agree that we need to preserve them as in the original document. > > 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 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 5:49 PM > To: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Draft Initial Report > > Hi folks, > > I quickly skimmed the document via Google Docs (I don't use MS Word > --- PDF would have been nicer), but noticed that there were various typos that could be fixed (all identified by spell check, so they should be evident to readers of the draft). > > The big issue I spotted is related to the inclusion of the Swaine memo within the document. It seems to have been copied/pasted verbatim, and all the footnotes got renumbered (and perhaps the pagination got changed too). However, this creates a major problem, because within the footnotes (and perhaps the document text too), there were various references to prior footnotes via "supra Note XXX"), and all those are now wrong! > > I don't think it would be appropriate to change all the "Supra Footnote XXX" references to match the new numbering in the current draft, as that would constitute a modification of Swaine's memo (which he might object to, especially if we introduce errors when doing so). > > I think the best way to handle it is to separate out the Swaine memo into a separate document/appendix, where it could simply be an identical DOC or PDF of whatever Swaine originally supplied to ICANN (I think he supplied a PDF), with no changes whatsoever. Thus, its footnotes and pagination would all be internally consistent, and the document would not be changed by us at all. [Alternatively, one could create a separate "section" within MS Word, where the footnotes and page numbering would start from "1" again, but I think it's just easier to just have a separate PDF (and then perhaps merge the 2 PDFs, via various PDF tools, perhaps adding a separator page or something to introduce it).] > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgIGaQ&… > >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find attached an initial draft of the full Initial Report from >> our Working Group. As noted previously, we hope that circulating this >> document now will allow Working Group members time to review the full >> draft report over the holidays, with a view to publication for public comment in January. >> >> >> >> It was agreed last week that we will go ahead with a short call this >> Thursday, to identify any remaining issues that Working Group members >> believe need to be discussed or otherwise added to the draft document. >> As such, and given that this is a rather lengthy document, we request >> that if you have suggestions and edits to the draft, instead of >> redlining it as has been our practice, please send your comments to >> this list so that staff can incorporate them in due course. >> >> >> >> Please note also that the attached document contains a few additions, >> shown as redlines, to what was Section 4 (Deliberations) and Section 6 >> (Recommendations) – these are the new language suggested by George for >> the Recommendations section following the last Working Group call, and >> additional edits to the Deliberations section sent by Phil but which >> we did not manage to capture in time for the last call. >> >> >> >> You will note from the document that these two sections have also been >> renumbered and moved around – this is due to our now using a new >> template for these PDP Working Group reports. Thus, the former Section >> 6 >> (Recommendations) is now Section 2, and appears before the >> Deliberations section (formerly Section 4, now Section 3) – which is >> also the order that George had suggested may make more sense. >> >> >> >> We hope in particular that Working Group members who have not been >> able to participate actively on the calls or on the mailing list will >> provide comments and input at this stage, before we finalize the >> Initial Report for public comment. >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers >> >> Mary >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFaQ&c=…> > Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Draft Initial Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached an initial draft of the full Initial Report from our Working Group. As noted previously, we hope that circulating this document now will allow Working Group members time to review the full draft report over the holidays, with a view to publication for public comment in January. It was agreed last week that we will go ahead with a short call this Thursday, to identify any remaining issues that Working Group members believe need to be discussed or otherwise added to the draft document. As such, and given that this is a rather lengthy document, we request that if you have suggestions and edits to the draft, instead of redlining it as has been our practice, please send your comments to this list so that staff can incorporate them in due course. Please note also that the attached document contains a few additions, shown as redlines, to what was Section 4 (Deliberations) and Section 6 (Recommendations) – these are the new language suggested by George for the Recommendations section following the last Working Group call, and additional edits to the Deliberations section sent by Phil but which we did not manage to capture in time for the last call. You will note from the document that these two sections have also been renumbered and moved around – this is due to our now using a new template for these PDP Working Group reports. Thus, the former Section 6 (Recommendations) is now Section 2, and appears before the Deliberations section (formerly Section 4, now Section 3) – which is also the order that George had suggested may make more sense. We hope in particular that Working Group members who have not been able to participate actively on the calls or on the mailing list will provide comments and input at this stage, before we finalize the Initial Report for public comment. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 05:12 To: Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Sections 4 and 6 of the draft Initial Report Dear all, Please find attached, in redlined format, updated versions of both Section 4 (Deliberations) and Section 6 (Recommendations) of our Working Group’s draft Initial Report. These updates are the suggested changes, edits and comments made by George, Phil and Jay. Please be so kind as to review the updates for discussion on our call this Thursday, when we will aim to finalize the text for these two important sections. Following the Thursday discussion, staff will incorporate all the agreed updates into a full draft Initial Report, which we hope to circulate to everyone for your review by early next week. This will allow us to have a final call on 22 December, following which the aim will be to publish the Initial Report for public comment in early January. We will attempt to address any remaining formatting and typographical errors when we compile the full draft Initial Report for circulation. 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 From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 04:44 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Attached are my revisions for sections 4 & 6... Sincerely, Jay This e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s). On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Attached are my (mostly) stylistic and grammatical revisions of Section 6. 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 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:04 PM To: George Kirikos; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Thanks George. Other WG members who wish to submit comments or proposed edits should do so within the next 24 hours. Best to all, 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 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:01 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Hi folks, My comments/thoughts on the draft section 4 and section 6 are below: SECTION 4 COMMENTS 1. page 3 (last paragraph) "…..to prohibit third party use of those identifiers as trademarks…." -- Of course, it's not a total or absolute prohibition, so the language of that paragraph should be altered slightly (i.e. perhaps insert the word "confusing" after "prohibit" for simplicity). 2. page 4: bottom; we might want to note that we also had a group conference call with Professor Swaine after his preliminary report 3. page 5, first paragraph, first sentence: perhaps change the word "opinion" to "research and analysis" (otherwise it suggests that the conclusions are subject to mere whim); or perhaps add "expert" before "opinion" to add more gravitas to the statement 4. page 6, first line "Issue Report preparatory" -- should that be "Issues" (plural), and I'm not sure about the grammar of "preparatory" in that sentence…it's awkward. Perhaps change "preparatory" to "prior"?? 5. page 6, 2nd paragraph, middle, "…for [the GNSO…" opening square bracket has no matching closing square bracket…?? 6. page 9: in the table, middle column (or 3rd column), we should note that the Article 6ter registration SUPPLEMENTS existing ability IGOs to have standing (e.g. via common law or registered marks). 7. page 10: middle column, top row (continuation from prior page) -- the part "but an arbitration option can be created…" -- that's just *one* of the options (probably the minority view at this point); the other option, probably the majority view, was to vitiate the UDRP/URS decision if immunity was attained during a court appeal). So, perhaps the section in the brackets should be removed, or altered. 8. page 10: second column, bottom row, middle column; like my point #6 above, the 6ter registration *SUPPLEMENTS* existing ability to have standing by IGOs. 9. page 9 & page 10: (column 1): the IGO proposal is listed as referencing only "IGO acronymn" -- I assume that should be "IGO *name* or acronym"?? 10. page 11, 2nd row, middle column: "or have trademarked same" -- that's imprecise? I think we mean "or who have registered or unregistered common law trademarks" SECTION 6 COMMENTS A. page 1, 2nd paragraph of "General" section -- the first sentence is a bit misleading, since it simply says that "the answers to these questions are no" -- If we look at what the questions were, that statement is misleading. The first question had a faulty premise that IGOs and INGOs *don't* already have access to the UDRP and URS. It's clear that as a working group that we've provided evidence that IGOs and INGOs *already* do have access to the UDRP and URS. So, the real PDP was about possible expansion of that access and/or "adjusting the playing field" in favor of one side or the other. B. page 3: some formatting issues in bullet point 3 (e.g. extra 'dot' before "Furthermore" and after "Charter" C. page 3: middle paragraph, last sentence --- "The WGfurther" -- should add a space after "WG" to make it "The WG further" D. page 3, bullet point 1 (near bottom): first sentence, perhaps make it plural for "Final Issues Report"?? (i.e. Issue vs Issues??) E. page 4, last paragraph of Recommendation #1: it talks about revisiting our work "if concrete proposals emerge* --- well, we know that those concrete proposals were made by the IGOs at a late stage; so, perhaps we need to modify the language of that paragraph a bit? (i.e. we received the concrete proposals, and analyzed them, etc., i.e. in Section 4; although, I still believe that the table in Section 4 comparing the recommendations should perhaps be moved to *after* section 6, to make sense chronologically; i.e. we analyzed/contrasted the IGOs Small Group proposal *after* our own recommendations). F. page 4, Recommendation 2, last sentence -- really it's for the benefit of panelists, registrants, *and* potential IGO complainants. G. page 5, 2nd last paragraph, last sentence "…in the absence of their possessing trademark or common law rights…." I think the word "registered" belongs before "trademark" (i.e. the common law rights are *unregistered* *trademark* rights; i.e. BOTH are trademark rights, one set registered, the other set are common law). H. page 9, further discussion of option 2: for the 3rd bullet point (crossing into the following page), perhaps it can be expanded, to highlight the fact that we know that UDRP decisions have been successfully overturned in the courts on numerous occasions, even when there were unanimous 3-panelist UDRP decisions. Furthermore, allowing mandatory and binding arbitration without recourse to the court creates the circumstances for a permanent DIVERGENCE of jurisprudence between the arbitration bodies and the national laws or courts. i.e. the existence of the appeal mechanism to national courts is of critical importance as a check and balance on the entire UDRP/URS system, because it ensures that the UDRP/URS cannot perpetually expand to give rights that are greater than those that exist in the national courts (which would then create forum shopping, where complainants would use the UDRP/URS to obtain relief that they could never achieve in the courts). Without these checks and balances, the power of "rogue" panelists/providers and the incentives for forum shopping grow considerably, undermining the purpose and integrity of the entire system. I. page 14, last paragraph of Recommendation #4 (i.e. directly above Recommendation #5); as discussed in our last conference call, the paragraph needs to be softened somewhat, i.e. the "IGOs will have to submit to" line is not accurate, given that we've identified workarounds for the IGOs regarding assignee/licensee bringing the UDRP/URS, in order to shield the IGO. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgMFaQ&…> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: > Thank you for these documents, Mary. > > > > To reprise some decisions made on today’s WG call: > > · On our next call of December 8th we are aiming to complete and > approve the revised draft of Section 6 and to perhaps do the same, or > at least get very close, in regard to the new draft of Section 4. > Therefore, all WG members are asked to review those attachments and > forward any comments and proposed revisions to the WG email list no > later than Tuesday, > 12/6 in order to give staff sufficient time to prepare new versions > for the > 12/8 call. > > · On the 12/15 call we will wrap up work on Section 4 (if not > already done) and review other “boilerplate” report sections that > shall be forthcoming from staff over the next two weeks. > > · Depending on the state of our work and holiday considerations, we > will meet one final time this year on either 12/22 or 12/29. The aim > for that meeting is to approve the final draft of the Preliminary > Report and publishing it for public comment. > > · Presuming that the draft is published for comment in early > January, the 40 day comment period will end in mid-February. If a > significant number of public comments are received prior to the end of > the comment period we may hold an interim WG meeting to review and > discuss those comments. Following the close of the comment period we > will hold several meetings to consider them and discuss any proposed > adjustments to the document. While recognizing that it may not be > feasible, we will aim to publish a Final report just prior to the > Helsinki meeting. If that is not possible then we anticipate > publication of the Final Report in the late March to mid-April timespan. > > > > Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Please take some > time over the next few days to carefully review Sections 4 and 6 – our > wok is almost done and we aim to publish the highest quality document > possible on this complex subject. > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > 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: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:12 PM > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW > draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report > > > > Dear all, > > > > The proposed agenda for our Working Group meeting this Thursday is as > follows: > > > > 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest > > 2. Review of discussions at ICANN57 – GAC Communique and WG open > session > > 3. Confirm WG comments in draft Initial Report concerning its review > of the IGO Small Group Proposal > > 4. Confirm intended date of publication of Initial Report and other > milestones leading to the Final Report > > 5. Any other business > > > > For #2, here is the link to the GAC Communique: > https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN%205[gacw…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gacweb.icann.org_downl…> > 7%20Communique.pdf?version=6&modificationDate=1478668059355&api=v2, > and to the transcript of the Working Group session at ICANN57: > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c3/Transcript%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20Hy…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_…>. > We note that a link to the slides that were used at that WG session > had been circulated previously (see below). > > > > In addition, for #2, WG members may wish to consider the question that > was raised by the representative of the United States Patent and > Trademark Office (USPTO) who attended the WG open session: “whether > [standing kicks in at the time that a notification is submitted to > WIPO or whether it kicks in once it's disseminated to all of the Paris > Convention member countries and whether they decide whether or not to > reject or not reject that notification.” > > > > For #3, please find attached an initial draft of what will be Section > 4 (Deliberations of the PDP Working Group) of our Initial Report > (where Section 6 – which we have been discussing – contains our > Preliminary Recommendations). As noted previously, Section 4 > complements Section 6 by providing both the process background and > related narrative to the actual text of the preliminary recommendations. > > > > For purposes of the call this week, staff suggests a focus on Section > 4.4 (where the process background and the WG’s conclusions on the > Small Group Proposal are described and tabulated). > > > > We are also attaching a clean copy of the latest version of Section 6, > updated following the last WG call before ICANN57. Please note that in > the interests of getting the draft Deliberations document out to > everyone as soon as we could, staff has not yet done a full sweep > through the Section 6 document to spot overlaps and gaps. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> > Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 12:23 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> > Subject: Slides from the Working Group's open community discussion at > ICANN57 > > > > Dear all, > > > > The slides from our Working Group’s open session yesterday at ICANN57, > where our likely initial recommendations were presented to the > community, are available here: > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/35/Updated%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20WG%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_…>. > > > > Once the transcript and recording are published on the ICANN57 meeting > website, we will provide a link to them and the slides from our > Working Group wiki page. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFaQ&c=…> > Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: > 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

6 6

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017: Nominations
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-12-12-en Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Launched in 2014 at ICANN50 in London, the Multistakeholder Ethos Award recognizes ICANNparticipants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email at ethosaward2017(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2017@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2017 at ICANN59 Johannesburg.For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw>. Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> ###

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Sections 4 and 6 of the draft Initial Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2016

Dec. 8, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached, in redlined format, updated versions of both Section 4 (Deliberations) and Section 6 (Recommendations) of our Working Group’s draft Initial Report. These updates are the suggested changes, edits and comments made by George, Phil and Jay. Please be so kind as to review the updates for discussion on our call this Thursday, when we will aim to finalize the text for these two important sections. Following the Thursday discussion, staff will incorporate all the agreed updates into a full draft Initial Report, which we hope to circulate to everyone for your review by early next week. This will allow us to have a final call on 22 December, following which the aim will be to publish the Initial Report for public comment in early January. We will attempt to address any remaining formatting and typographical errors when we compile the full draft Initial Report for circulation. 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 From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 04:44 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Attached are my revisions for sections 4 & 6... Sincerely, Jay This e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s). On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Attached are my (mostly) stylistic and grammatical revisions of Section 6. 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 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:04 PM To: George Kirikos; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Thanks George. Other WG members who wish to submit comments or proposed edits should do so within the next 24 hours. Best to all, 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 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:01 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report Hi folks, My comments/thoughts on the draft section 4 and section 6 are below: SECTION 4 COMMENTS 1. page 3 (last paragraph) "…..to prohibit third party use of those identifiers as trademarks…." -- Of course, it's not a total or absolute prohibition, so the language of that paragraph should be altered slightly (i.e. perhaps insert the word "confusing" after "prohibit" for simplicity). 2. page 4: bottom; we might want to note that we also had a group conference call with Professor Swaine after his preliminary report 3. page 5, first paragraph, first sentence: perhaps change the word "opinion" to "research and analysis" (otherwise it suggests that the conclusions are subject to mere whim); or perhaps add "expert" before "opinion" to add more gravitas to the statement 4. page 6, first line "Issue Report preparatory" -- should that be "Issues" (plural), and I'm not sure about the grammar of "preparatory" in that sentence…it's awkward. Perhaps change "preparatory" to "prior"?? 5. page 6, 2nd paragraph, middle, "…for [the GNSO…" opening square bracket has no matching closing square bracket…?? 6. page 9: in the table, middle column (or 3rd column), we should note that the Article 6ter registration SUPPLEMENTS existing ability IGOs to have standing (e.g. via common law or registered marks). 7. page 10: middle column, top row (continuation from prior page) -- the part "but an arbitration option can be created…" -- that's just *one* of the options (probably the minority view at this point); the other option, probably the majority view, was to vitiate the UDRP/URS decision if immunity was attained during a court appeal). So, perhaps the section in the brackets should be removed, or altered. 8. page 10: second column, bottom row, middle column; like my point #6 above, the 6ter registration *SUPPLEMENTS* existing ability to have standing by IGOs. 9. page 9 & page 10: (column 1): the IGO proposal is listed as referencing only "IGO acronymn" -- I assume that should be "IGO *name* or acronym"?? 10. page 11, 2nd row, middle column: "or have trademarked same" -- that's imprecise? I think we mean "or who have registered or unregistered common law trademarks" SECTION 6 COMMENTS A. page 1, 2nd paragraph of "General" section -- the first sentence is a bit misleading, since it simply says that "the answers to these questions are no" -- If we look at what the questions were, that statement is misleading. The first question had a faulty premise that IGOs and INGOs *don't* already have access to the UDRP and URS. It's clear that as a working group that we've provided evidence that IGOs and INGOs *already* do have access to the UDRP and URS. So, the real PDP was about possible expansion of that access and/or "adjusting the playing field" in favor of one side or the other. B. page 3: some formatting issues in bullet point 3 (e.g. extra 'dot' before "Furthermore" and after "Charter" C. page 3: middle paragraph, last sentence --- "The WGfurther" -- should add a space after "WG" to make it "The WG further" D. page 3, bullet point 1 (near bottom): first sentence, perhaps make it plural for "Final Issues Report"?? (i.e. Issue vs Issues??) E. page 4, last paragraph of Recommendation #1: it talks about revisiting our work "if concrete proposals emerge* --- well, we know that those concrete proposals were made by the IGOs at a late stage; so, perhaps we need to modify the language of that paragraph a bit? (i.e. we received the concrete proposals, and analyzed them, etc., i.e. in Section 4; although, I still believe that the table in Section 4 comparing the recommendations should perhaps be moved to *after* section 6, to make sense chronologically; i.e. we analyzed/contrasted the IGOs Small Group proposal *after* our own recommendations). F. page 4, Recommendation 2, last sentence -- really it's for the benefit of panelists, registrants, *and* potential IGO complainants. G. page 5, 2nd last paragraph, last sentence "…in the absence of their possessing trademark or common law rights…." I think the word "registered" belongs before "trademark" (i.e. the common law rights are *unregistered* *trademark* rights; i.e. BOTH are trademark rights, one set registered, the other set are common law). H. page 9, further discussion of option 2: for the 3rd bullet point (crossing into the following page), perhaps it can be expanded, to highlight the fact that we know that UDRP decisions have been successfully overturned in the courts on numerous occasions, even when there were unanimous 3-panelist UDRP decisions. Furthermore, allowing mandatory and binding arbitration without recourse to the court creates the circumstances for a permanent DIVERGENCE of jurisprudence between the arbitration bodies and the national laws or courts. i.e. the existence of the appeal mechanism to national courts is of critical importance as a check and balance on the entire UDRP/URS system, because it ensures that the UDRP/URS cannot perpetually expand to give rights that are greater than those that exist in the national courts (which would then create forum shopping, where complainants would use the UDRP/URS to obtain relief that they could never achieve in the courts). Without these checks and balances, the power of "rogue" panelists/providers and the incentives for forum shopping grow considerably, undermining the purpose and integrity of the entire system. I. page 14, last paragraph of Recommendation #4 (i.e. directly above Recommendation #5); as discussed in our last conference call, the paragraph needs to be softened somewhat, i.e. the "IGOs will have to submit to" line is not accurate, given that we've identified workarounds for the IGOs regarding assignee/licensee bringing the UDRP/URS, in order to shield the IGO. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DgMFaQ&…> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: > Thank you for these documents, Mary. > > > > To reprise some decisions made on today’s WG call: > > · On our next call of December 8th we are aiming to complete and > approve the revised draft of Section 6 and to perhaps do the same, or > at least get very close, in regard to the new draft of Section 4. > Therefore, all WG members are asked to review those attachments and > forward any comments and proposed revisions to the WG email list no > later than Tuesday, > 12/6 in order to give staff sufficient time to prepare new versions > for the > 12/8 call. > > · On the 12/15 call we will wrap up work on Section 4 (if not > already done) and review other “boilerplate” report sections that > shall be forthcoming from staff over the next two weeks. > > · Depending on the state of our work and holiday considerations, we > will meet one final time this year on either 12/22 or 12/29. The aim > for that meeting is to approve the final draft of the Preliminary > Report and publishing it for public comment. > > · Presuming that the draft is published for comment in early > January, the 40 day comment period will end in mid-February. If a > significant number of public comments are received prior to the end of > the comment period we may hold an interim WG meeting to review and > discuss those comments. Following the close of the comment period we > will hold several meetings to consider them and discuss any proposed > adjustments to the document. While recognizing that it may not be > feasible, we will aim to publish a Final report just prior to the > Helsinki meeting. If that is not possible then we anticipate > publication of the Final Report in the late March to mid-April timespan. > > > > Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Please take some > time over the next few days to carefully review Sections 4 and 6 – our > wok is almost done and we aim to publish the highest quality document > possible on this complex subject. > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > 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: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:12 PM > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW > draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report > > > > Dear all, > > > > The proposed agenda for our Working Group meeting this Thursday is as > follows: > > > > 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest > > 2. Review of discussions at ICANN57 – GAC Communique and WG open > session > > 3. Confirm WG comments in draft Initial Report concerning its review > of the IGO Small Group Proposal > > 4. Confirm intended date of publication of Initial Report and other > milestones leading to the Final Report > > 5. Any other business > > > > For #2, here is the link to the GAC Communique: > https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN%205[gacw…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gacweb.icann.org_downl…> > 7%20Communique.pdf?version=6&modificationDate=1478668059355&api=v2, > and to the transcript of the Working Group session at ICANN57: > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c3/Transcript%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20Hy…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_…>. > We note that a link to the slides that were used at that WG session > had been circulated previously (see below). > > > > In addition, for #2, WG members may wish to consider the question that > was raised by the representative of the United States Patent and > Trademark Office (USPTO) who attended the WG open session: “whether > [standing kicks in at the time that a notification is submitted to > WIPO or whether it kicks in once it's disseminated to all of the Paris > Convention member countries and whether they decide whether or not to > reject or not reject that notification.” > > > > For #3, please find attached an initial draft of what will be Section > 4 (Deliberations of the PDP Working Group) of our Initial Report > (where Section 6 – which we have been discussing – contains our > Preliminary Recommendations). As noted previously, Section 4 > complements Section 6 by providing both the process background and > related narrative to the actual text of the preliminary recommendations. > > > > For purposes of the call this week, staff suggests a focus on Section > 4.4 (where the process background and the WG’s conclusions on the > Small Group Proposal are described and tabulated). > > > > We are also attaching a clean copy of the latest version of Section 6, > updated following the last WG call before ICANN57. Please note that in > the interests of getting the draft Deliberations document out to > everyone as soon as we could, staff has not yet done a full sweep > through the Section 6 document to spot overlaps and gaps. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> > Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 12:23 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> > Subject: Slides from the Working Group's open community discussion at > ICANN57 > > > > Dear all, > > > > The slides from our Working Group’s open session yesterday at ICANN57, > where our likely initial recommendations were presented to the > community, are available here: > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/35/Updated%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20WG%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_…>. > > > > Once the transcript and recording are published on the ICANN57 meeting > website, we will provide a link to them and the slides from our > Working Group wiki page. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFaQ&c=…> > Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: > 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

3 4

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG on Thursday, 08 December 2016 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 8, 2016

Dec. 8, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC at: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-08dec16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-08dec16-en.mp3> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec[gnso.icann.org]<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: David Maher – RySG George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin – BC Apologies: Mason Cole – RySG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP ICANN staff: Mary Wong Dennis Chang 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/jpnDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 08 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on Thursday, 08 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Jay Chapman:Hi George George Kirikos:Hi Jay. How are you? Jay Chapman:Great - you? Petter Rindforth:Hi & welcome Jay Chapman:Hi Petter George Kirikos:I'm fine, thanks. George Kirikos:Hey Petter. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Philip Corwin:Good day all George Kirikos:Welcome Paul and Phil. Jay Chapman:yes George Kirikos:Some of the SOIs are missing on the website. We should encourage those missing them to fill them out. George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.ican… George Kirikos:That was the post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2016-December/000623.html in case folks missed it. Jay Chapman:Petter, George's point is a very salient one to make in the report Philip Corwin:I agree it is good to emphasize that CRP mechanisms are supplements to judicial and law enforcement actions George Kirikos:It's reflected/addressed in the latest draft, I believe. George Kirikos:We've not had any new input from the IGOs or GAC, I assume? Berry Cobb:FYI, Mary is trying to join this session. She should be on momentarily. Mary Wong:Sorry I'm late, everyone' Mary Wong:Yes, all are reflected except Phil's latest Mary Wong:Yes Mary Wong:Section 6 is incorporated from Phil but not Section 4 George Kirikos:I think my comment yesterday isn't there. George Kirikos:A typo, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2016-December/000627.html Philip Corwin:I believe that elsewhere in the report we point out that we found evidence that IGOs have used the UDRP. Correct? Mary Wong:@Phil, yes Jay Chapman:Based on the WG's thorough investigation, George's idea of putting a footnote on this issue seems duly warranted Mary Wong:@George, we can add as answers to these questions "as posed to us by the Council" or something like tht Jay Chapman:that's a good idea, Mary - and still add the footnote George Kirikos:Right, so it's a false premise. So maybe a footnote on that page, so that folks don't misrepresent our "No" or take it out of context. Mary Wong:As these are the actual questions that we were asked by the GNSO Council George Kirikos:Because, the IGOs are playing some political games, so a footnote might ensure that that sentence doesn't get misused. Philip Corwin:I think a footnote that references the finding elsewhere in the report is sufficient Mary Wong:We will make the necessary reference/adjustment, thanks Mary Wong:@Petter, all - yes, we made most of the suggested changes but left as comments those comments that may require more substanative changes or other more substantial edits George Kirikos:Is Phil's hand new? George Kirikos:I read Phil's changes, and they seemed fine to me for Sec #6. George Kirikos:I guess page 8 has the next major "debatable" point (see margin). Philip Corwin:That was my deletion because it was negated by receipt of the Small Group Proposal Philip Corwin:What page are we discussing??? Mary Wong:Page 8 going into Page 9, I believe Steve Chan:I've synced the page temporarily Jay Chapman:yes Jay Chapman:p9 George Kirikos:Sorry it was page 9. Jay Chapman:Agree w George Paul Tattersfield:agree but it needs re wording George Kirikos:Thanks Jay. George Kirikos:It looks like it's in the "Action Items" on the right pod. Mary Wong:@Petter, yes, that is why we didn't include that in this Section 6 as threre are no recommendations from the WG at this time on the Small Group Proposal George Kirikos:That's a fair point, Phil. George Kirikos:Well, we've essentially rejected the Small Group proposal. George Kirikos:(which is a "recommendation" of a sort) :-) George Kirikos:i.e. maybe we should explicitly recommend non-acceptance of the IGO proposal? George Kirikos:We should do a full typo check of the entire document, of course, before we publish. Paul Tattersfield:The Small group output demonstrates the problem having a policy drawn up by only people with a similar shared objectives George Kirikos:+1 Paul Steve Chan:@Phil, as noted, the draft in the AC room does not include your latest updates, but we do have them loaded to view separately. George Kirikos:They'll need to be merged later. George Kirikos:(and that'll cause all the page numbers to change) George Kirikos:Perhaps next week will be a "last call for edits", so that folks like Lori, Kathy, Paul Keating and any other "acive" members can get in their final views? Mary Wong:@George, we will circulate an updated draft along with a full draft report to the list George Kirikos:(i.e. before next week's meeting) George Kirikos:Are we looking at Phil's draft now? George Kirikos:(I'm lost --- which page are we on??) George Kirikos:(nevermind, I guess we're on page 6 now) Jay Chapman:I don't see any edits on p7 George Kirikos:He's not looking at the one in the Adobe pod. George Kirikos:My edits are there too. Jay Chapman:I made a few edits in the chart as well Paul Tattersfield:It would be helpful if the document window could be made wider and the Notes window smaller i.e. just the same height as the chat window then you could have a larger font and still see the whole document more often with out horizontal scrolling Jay Chapman:agree w Phil George Kirikos:We can discuss Agenda item #4 now. George Kirikos:To get intended date of publication, etc. George Kirikos:The first Monday in January is January 2. So, maybe aim for January 9th or so? George Kirikos:(or earlier, if folks think we're up to it) George Kirikos:Here's a January calendar: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.timeanddate.com_ca… Mary Wong:@George, we would recommend the second week in Jan to publish George Kirikos:Yep, that makes sense, Mary, i.e. the week of January 9th. Get folks to "ease into" things in the first week, and be back in business in 2nd week of January. :-) Mary Wong:@George, yup Mary Wong:@Phil, yes George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.ican… Mary Wong:@George, we will try to highlight that in the next circulation, which will be of the full draft Initial Report George Kirikos:A consensus of 10 or 20 people is better than just 5 or 6. Philip Corwin:Yes Mary, highlight that when the full report draft is circulated. Mary Wong:Will do, Phil Jay Chapman:thanks, all George Kirikos:Bye folks!

1 0

Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our Working Group meeting this Thursday is as follows: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of discussions at ICANN57 – GAC Communique and WG open session 3. Confirm WG comments in draft Initial Report concerning its review of the IGO Small Group Proposal 4. Confirm intended date of publication of Initial Report and other milestones leading to the Final Report 5. Any other business For #2, here is the link to the GAC Communique: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN%2057%20C…, and to the transcript of the Working Group session at ICANN57: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c3/Transcript%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20Hy…. We note that a link to the slides that were used at that WG session had been circulated previously (see below). In addition, for #2, WG members may wish to consider the question that was raised by the representative of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) who attended the WG open session: “whether [standing kicks in at the time that a notification is submitted to WIPO or whether it kicks in once it's disseminated to all of the Paris Convention member countries and whether they decide whether or not to reject or not reject that notification.” For #3, please find attached an initial draft of what will be Section 4 (Deliberations of the PDP Working Group) of our Initial Report (where Section 6 – which we have been discussing – contains our Preliminary Recommendations). As noted previously, Section 4 complements Section 6 by providing both the process background and related narrative to the actual text of the preliminary recommendations. For purposes of the call this week, staff suggests a focus on Section 4.4 (where the process background and the WG’s conclusions on the Small Group Proposal are described and tabulated). We are also attaching a clean copy of the latest version of Section 6, updated following the last WG call before ICANN57. Please note that in the interests of getting the draft Deliberations document out to everyone as soon as we could, staff has not yet done a full sweep through the Section 6 document to spot overlaps and gaps. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 12:23 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Slides from the Working Group's open community discussion at ICANN57 Dear all, The slides from our Working Group’s open session yesterday at ICANN57, where our likely initial recommendations were presented to the community, are available here: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/35/Updated%20IGO-INGO%20CRP%20WG%20…. Once the transcript and recording are published on the ICANN57 meeting website, we will provide a link to them and the slides from our Working Group wiki page. 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

4 8