August 2016 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

FW: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue
by Mary Wong Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Dear Working Group members, At our co-chairs’ suggestion, I’m forwarding a note that ICANN Board member Chris Disspain just sent to the GNSO Council concerning work on IGO acronyms protection. You may be interested in particular in those parts of his message that reference the work of our group, as well as the fact that the Board does not plan to act on GAC advice relating to curative rights before the completion of our PDP. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 15:02 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue Dear Councilors, Please find attached a note from ICANN Board member Chris Disspain that he has asked be forwarded to the Council, as a follow up to the discussions that took place in Helsinki on the issue of IGO acronym protections. 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

2 1

Agenda and documents for next Working Group call on 1 September
by Mary Wong Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

Dear Working Group members, The proposed agenda for our next call, scheduled for Thursday 1 September at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review status of and pick up discussions on the following: (1) previous WG discussions on standing; (2) begin deliberations on what the applicable substantive grounds for an IGO complaint might be (if different from trademark rights) under UDRP/URS; and (3) develop specific recommendations for the policy options regarding IGO jurisdictional immunity 3. [if time permits] Discuss outline of possible WG initial recommendations (see Section 6 of the attached document, which is a very skeletal outline of what our Initial Report might look like, based on the template used for all GNSO PDP WG reports) 4. Next steps/next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Update: Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, Further to our previous email we have encountered some technical difficulties with the survey which was previously sent out. To that end we have prepared a replacement and would ask you to still complete it by 11 September 2016. The revised survey is available here - https://goo.gl/forms/nUO214NICcPm7jc83 The responses which have already been received will be tracked through by staff to ensure their inclusion in the final report. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:20 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Survey on Newcomer Tools Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Survey on Newcomer Tools
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear ICANN Community member, We need your input to improve GNSO newcomer and training tools. GNSO Council has directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607> staff to develop a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. Staff would kindly request that you complete the attached survey available here<http://www.clicktools.com/go?iv=1063kkc3v1m98>. Please provide your response by 11 September 2016. Should you have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0

FOR YOUR REVIEW: Materials on a possible de novo appeal mechanism (Re: The UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules and the UDRP)
by Mary Wong Aug. 5, 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Dear all, As you begin reviewing the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules (link provided in the email below), and following up on the WG request on the call held yesterday, please find attached: (1) the WIPO Secretariat’s 2003 paper outlining the possibility of a de novo appeal mechanism for domain name disputes; and (2) the staff briefing note on the topic that had been prepared in March 2015. For your convenience, they are also available on the WG wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/DrvhAg. Please also note some of the differences between the mechanism described in the WIPO Secretariat paper highlighted in the staff briefing note, e.g. the paper was directed toward the issue of country names and focused on the nature of state (sovereign) immunity. 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: Mary Wong mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 16:50 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: The UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules and the UDRP Dear all, As referenced by Professor Swaine and as part of the WG’s deliberations over the advisability of adding some form of arbitral appeal mechanism to the existing dispute resolution processes, here is the full set of the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules (last revised in 2010): http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb…. Not being an expert in international arbitration, it would nevertheless seem that some features of the Rules that might be of greatest interest to our WG include the following: · They are procedural only, and do not bind parties to a particular seat/location or a specific institution to administer the proceeding or appoint the arbitrator(s) · They can be modified by the parties’ agreement · They contemplate the possibility that an arbitration does not have to be in-person or involve oral hearings, i.e. can be decided on the basis of documents and submitted materials · The parties can agree on the number of arbitrators (e.g. a sole arbitrator) with allowance for a three-member panel in certain situations · The appointment of an arbitrator can be challenged · The arbitration is to be conducted “in such manner as [the arbitral tribunal] considers appropriate, provided that the parties are treated with equality and that at an appropriate stage of the proceedings each party is given a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case. The arbitral tribunal, in exercising its discretion, shall conduct the proceedings so as to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and to provide a fair and efficient process for resolving the parties’ dispute” · The language of the proceedings is determined by the arbitral tribunal · Expert witnesses can be appointed · The tribunal is to apply the “rules of law designated by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Failing such designation by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the law which it determines to be appropriate.” · The arbitration award is final and binding on all the parties · The tribunal can determine how to fix its fees, which are to be reasonable and subject to any framework developed by the appointing authority · Costs are in principle borne by the losing party, though the tribunal may apportion them in appropriate cases In view of the above, staff suggests that in further considering the option of adding/including arbitral appeal – possibly through reference to the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules – the following questions can be discussed: 1. How appropriate, and applicable, are the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules to an appeal from a domain name dispute between an IGO and a registrant? 2. Are there any parts of the Rules that need to be modified, if the Rules are adopted for an appeal arising out of a UDRP proceeding? 3. If adopted, should the [modified] Rules apply to all IGOs on the GAC list or only to certain IGOs (e.g. the UN and possibly also its Specialized Agencies)? Finally, the Working Group may find helpful a 2003 WIPO Secretariat paper that analyzed the use of arbitral appeal in the case of States and country names (i.e. not IGO names or acronyms): http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_11/sct_11_5.pdf. ICANN staff had summarized this paper for the Working Group in March 2015, and noted that the paper focused on a de novo appeal procedure that was not intended to replace the Mutual Jurisdiction clause of the UDRP, but that would “strike a balance between the privileges and immunities of sovereign states on the one hand, and the right of a losing UDRP respondent to have the dispute reconsidered in a neutral forum on the other”. It also contained the following general minimum recommendations: (1) The parties should be able to restate their case completely anew. They should not be confined to claiming that the UDRP panel did not consider certain relevant facts or wrongly applied the UDRP, but should also be able to submit new evidence and new factual or legal arguments. (2) In order to provide a meaningful “appeal,” conducting a de novo arbitration should, as a general rule, not be more burdensome than conducting litigation in a court of mutual jurisdiction. (3) The arbitral tribunal should consist of one or more neutral and independent decision makers, who should not be identical or related to the panelists who rendered the UDRP decision (4) Either party should be able to present its case in a complete manner. The arbitral tribunal should, for example, have the authority to allow for, or request, additional written submissions, and it should be possible to hold in‑person hearings. 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

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 04 August 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-04aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-04aug16-en.mp3> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#august The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> Attendees: David Maher - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Lori Schulman - IPC Mason Cole - RySG Paul Tattersfield - Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Jay Chapman – Individual Gary Campbell - GAC Apologies: None ICANN staff: Berry Cobb Mary Wong David Tait 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/ Wiki page: Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 04 August 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the Thursday, 04 August 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/IgCsAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:Hello George! George Kirikos:Michelle, ma belle...these are words that go together well. :-) George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? Michelle DeSmyter:Yes, they do! :) Very well, thank you! George Kirikos:So, is anyone else excited about Suicide Squad (opening this week)? George Kirikos:Hear you very well. George Kirikos:The film was shot in Toronto. Philip Corwin:Hello all George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil. George Kirikos:1 staff for every participant (5 to 5) :-) Paul Tattersfield:Hello all Paul Tattersfield:Hi George George Kirikos:Hi Paul. Jay Chapman:Hi George, everyone. George Kirikos:Hey Jay. Mary Wong:Emily is the newest member of the ICANN GNSO Policy Staff and is observing a number of WGs Mary Wong:It's unsynced George Kirikos:Thanks for updating "A" to reflect the licensee option. Mary Wong:@George, you're welcome (and we will also update the RPM WG document in that PDP as well :) Mary Wong:@Phil, all - it may also be helpful to seek feedback from the providers as to what difficulties (if any) there may be with any of these options. Petter Rindforth:I agree, so far we are talking about already accepted proof of rights George Kirikos:That was Paul Keating's suggestion, not mine. George Kirikos:(although, I agree with it, since it maintains the status quo) Mary Wong:On Option C - staff notes that the GAC did not make a distinction between the UN and other IGOs; however, it remains an option due to what seems to be the different treatment in int'l law of at least the UN (and possibly its specialized agencies). Mary Wong:That is so, Phil. Paul Tattersfield:doesn;t need to be "|registered" George Kirikos:+1 Paul. I think most panels would accept unregistered 'common law' rights. Paul Tattersfield:it's the underlying use that is being protected Mary Wong:Yes, and that would be the case if the IGO chose to rely on its TM rights (registered or not) in filing a UDRP - which is the status quo. George Kirikos:Both sides could voluntarily agree to binding arbitration (as they can now, without changing the UDRP). Of course, I have a big problem (as do others) compelling a registrant to give up their legal rights to access their national courts. George Kirikos:Re: "pool of cases" is small --- the same can be said "what are the BENEFITS" :-) Mary Wong:Note that these Considerations are summaries of comments made by WG members in previous meetings. Mary Wong:(ie not staff observations :) Mary Wong:Thanks, Phil :) Mary Wong:Oops, sorry George :( Paul Tattersfield:Courts have a range of sanctions too George Kirikos:Reflecting econmic rationality, disputes will go to court only when the stakes are high (i.e. the domain name is very valuable). That's when folks will want all the protection that the courts provide. George Kirikos:UDRP is perfect for "low value" domains, i.e. kind of like small claims court. George Kirikos:Where an IGO has a dispute over a very valuable domain name, it should waive its immunity (just as it would have to for other kinds of disputes over high value assets). Paul Tattersfield:Also there are capital values and income values George Kirikos:Apple and Samsung chose courts, rather than arbitration. When the stakes are high, most litigants want the protection of the courts. Paul Tattersfield:interesting Mary thank you for raising it Mary Wong:You're very welcome, Paul! Lori:HI, my apologies for being late Mary Wong:Hi Lori, welcome! George Kirikos:Welcome, Lori. George Kirikos:I'd love to hear from Gary. George Kirikos:(since he might have input from GAC) Petter Rindforth:Through guidance Lori:I would like to follow up and ask for the getting the batting average of UNCITRAL in terms of the ratio of decisions in favor of and against UN agencies. I know that there is a concern with optics Lori:but I would rather be armed with data George Kirikos:Olympic hiatus :-) Lori:if we don't support the UNCITRAL option Lori:OK with Hiatus Mary Wong:@Lori - we can try but as it's procedural rules only and not a single institution administering arbitrations unde the Rules, I'm not sure we can get any reliable data. Mary Wong:Since they are private disputes (mostly) in various venues, with the only commonality being the parties' agreement to use the UNCITRAL Rules. Lori:so there is no data on how the rules work? Mary Wong:@Lori, we don't know - just noting that it may be hard to get reliable data as there's no single institutional source. Lori:Ok. I understand. Lori:I am not comfortable ruling it out if we don't have any data. I am in the dark in this. Not my area of expertise at all. George Kirikos:Lori: I found http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2526302 doing a Google search. It was more of a survey data, though, not actual stats. Mary Wong:Not that staff doesn't want to do the legwork, but they also cover all kinds of commercial disputes. Lori:Thanks George. Lori:Mary, I understand your concern. Mary Wong:@Phil, not really "bare bones" per se, but more procedural in nature. Lori:I will reach out to Brian Beckham at WIPO and ask Lori:He would have that data I think George Kirikos:Should we use the AGREE button? George Kirikos:(if we agree with the proposal) Jay Chapman:sorry, erroneous hand Lori:Good plan Mary Wong:@Phil, will do George Kirikos:Have a nice August, everyone! Bye. Jay Chapman:thanks, all! Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye Mary Wong:have a great vacation, Phil and Petter! :) Petter Rindforth:Thanks!

1 0

Agenda and updated documents for the WG call on Thursday 4 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 4, 2016

Aug. 4, 2016

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next call, scheduled for Thursday 4 August at 1600 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of policy options · Options B through E, and Additional Suggestions 1 & 2 (refer to updated document, attached) 3. Next steps · WG co-chairs’ proposal: no meetings for the remainder of August; straw poll of WG members to determine key elements for the Initial Report; staff to create outline of report for WG discussion (to resume 1 September) · Expected timeline from September through submission of Final Report to the GNSO Council 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