September 2016 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Article 6ter Updates as per September 30, 2016
by Petter Rindforth Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear WG Members, See below the news from WIPO on additions to Article 6ter protection. Don't think it means we need to make any amendment, but just so that we all have the latest version. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu ---------- Vidarebefordrat meddelande ---------- Från: World Intellectual Property Organization <newsletters(a)wipo.int> Datum: 30 september 2016 11:03:46 +02:00 Ämne: Article 6ter Updates Till: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Additions & changes under Article 6ter View online <http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=5e18cd9ff0…> <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…> World Intellectual Property Organization <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> Article 6ter Updates SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 Please note that the semi-annual publication of communications under Article 6ter, dated September 30, 2016, is now available through the Article 6ter Express database <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…>. SIGNS ADDED States * France: 2 official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty (FR5 and FR6) * Republic of Korea: 1 armorial bearing (KR73) * Spain: 1 State emblem (ES14) International Intergovernmental Organizations * African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO): 3 signs (AP2 to AP4) * Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP): 2 signs (BX28 and BX29) * International Cospas-Sarsat Programme: 8 signs (QO1747 to QO1754) CHANGES CONCERNING EXISTING RECORDS States * CA17 to CA27: objections * FR3: withdrawal * JP3: objection International Intergovernmental Organizations * QO1559: objection * QO1561: objection * QO1571 to QO1774: objections * QO1576: objection * QO1578 and QO1779: objections * QO1584 to QO1587: objections * QO1592: objection Follow us on social media<http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> Twitter <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…> YouTube <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> Facebook <http://wipo.us8.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…> Flickr <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…> We sent you this e-mail because you signed up to receive information from WIPO. Manage subscriptions <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/profile?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=bcb3…> | Unsubscribe from all WIPO newsletters <http://wipo.us8.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id=…> World Intellectual Property Organization <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…> 34, chemin des Colombettes 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland WIPO <http://wipo.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ebfb4bd1ae698020adc01a4ce&id…>

2 2

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [gnso-secs] RE: Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Thank you Lori, I will go ahead and note your apology – have a good rest of your day! Best, Michelle From: <owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org>> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.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>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-secs] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG My belated apologies. I had a conflict, again, this week. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman 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] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:25 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-29sep16-en.mp3[audio.i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep<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 - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Keating - NCUC Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Osvaldo Noa - ISPCP Apologies: Mason Cole – RySG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Emily Barabas Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_…> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Bgy4Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 29 September 2016 Petter Rindforth: Hi George, welcome! George Kirikos: Hi folks. George Kirikos: Hi Petter. Michelle DeSmyter: Hi there George and Petter! George Kirikos: Hi Michelle. Petter Rindforth: Hi! Calling in from another conference today, so I hope that you will not hear to much external noice. Paul Tattersfield: Hi everyone George Kirikos: Welcome Paul. George Kirikos: I can hear you, Petter. Philip Corwin: Good day all George Kirikos: Hi Phil. Mary Wong: Document is unsync'ed for all to scroll. George Kirikos: (we're at the bottom of page 6, top of page 7) George Kirikos: There was a very good piece in the NY Times about the dangers of arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_2015_11…> Jay Chapman: for clarification - what color are the changes attributable to staff? George Kirikos: More and more federal agencies in the US are also moving against arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/dealbook/arbitration-nursing-hom…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_2016_09…> Mary Wong: Hi Jay, on screen tje staff changes display in orange in this section Jay Chapman: got it. thanks, Mary George Kirikos: A third piece worth reading, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privat…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_2015_11…> Mary Wong: No worries - it's starting to look quite colorful, we know. You can also see more clearly in the Word document who made what changes, and in what color. Jay Chapman: 10-4 Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, that was the intent of adding "published" - to make clear it's a publicly available document, not just something sent to the GAC. Philip Corwin: @George--those US cases involve instances in which consumers have been required to waive their access to court, including the bringing of class actions, and to only use arbitration for compalints. very different than UDRP/URS, which are options in addition to court adjudication George Kirikos: Is this document accurate on the different degrees of "consensus" in a PDP? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> (might be outdated) Paul Tattersfield: George's audio isn't very clear here George Kirikos: Sorry, Paul. Are we at "consensus", if there are just one or two people against Option 1? George Kirikos: i.e. "full consensus" vs. "rough consensus" vs. "consensus" vs. ..... Paul Tattersfield: thanks George George Kirikos: +1 Jay Mary Wong: We can say consensus (without the word rough), and ask for specific objections from the list? Mary Wong: Consensus in the WG Guidelines = where most agree, and only a small minority disagree. George Kirikos: I don't see it as intolerable situation for the IGO --- if the UDRP didn't exist, they would have had to waive immunity. Sending it back to arbitration (with all its weaknesses) is less fair, given they routinely get it wrong. Mary Wong: @Phil, note that the UNCITRAL Rules don't limit the venue/arbitrator/entity to any particular provider. Mary Wong: (that's why we wanted to highlight the distinction between specifying the arbitration entity and the applicable rules for an arbitration) Paul Tattersfield: Human rights came up in the RMP WG, could be relevant here as with a biased arbitration a right to be fairly heard would be have been denied George Kirikos: Footnote 2 of the document I linked to said explicitly: " It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term “Consensus” as this may have legal implications." George Kirikos: (sorry for the formatting) George Kirikos: Vitiating the UDRP/URS decision, though, preserves the "status quo" (i.e. as if the UDRP didn't happen), in the event that the court somehow finds that the waiver was insufficient to overturn the immunity. Paul Tattersfield: An aside: The new font in this chat window is not as clear as the previous chatroom Mary Wong: @Paul T, we just increased the font size - does that help? Paul Tattersfield: yes seems clearer not any larger which is good Paul Tattersfield: thanks :) George Kirikos: Some additional articles on forced arbitration: http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/eliminating-forced-arbitration[afj.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afj.org_our-2Dwork_…> George Kirikos: And additional reading: http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=7332[citizen.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.citizen.org_congres…> Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, we will likely reword this para on consensus. George Kirikos: Not "full consensus", but we have reached "consensus". George Kirikos: (since that's the PDP guidelines) Philip Corwin: Question for staff: Under WG procedures, what level of consensus is required to adopt a recoimmendation in the FINAL report? Thanks Jay Chapman: a second bite at the apple, yes Mary Mary Wong: Thanks, Jay, for clarifying - we just wanted to be sure the WG is aware of and has considered this. Jay Chapman: Thanks, Mary George Kirikos: It's forum shopping.....the IGO isn't restricted from filing a complaint in court (rather than use the UDRP). But, strategically, they would choose the venue where the odds are skewed in their favour (UDRP, arbitration, etc.). George Kirikos: The ability to have recourtse to the national courts isn't just a check on the IGO or the domain name registrant --- it's a check on the entire system of arbitration or UDRP (i.e. on the providers). Otherwise, there can be a permanent deviation from the laws of the various nations. Jay Chapman: Very helpful - thanks, Mary Mary Wong: You're (all) most welcome! Paul Tattersfield: George +1 'a permanent deviation' or worse over time an increasing deviation George Kirikos: +1 Phil Jay Chapman: agree Phil George Kirikos: At least a week for a thorough review. Paul Tattersfield: agrree Phil 2 weeks would be better George Kirikos: (Paul Keating did a first pass, but I know I haven't done as much as I wanted, given it was always changing) George Kirikos: (as did Petter) Philip Corwin: Section 6 is cl;eaely most important, and if were are unable to issue complete draft report pre-Hyderabad we should probably put out Section 6 draft to focus discussion in Hyderabad. On that, do we know yet when this WG will meet there? George Kirikos: Bye folks. Mary Wong: Agree, Phil - we will check on the actual WG meeting time and day. Philip Corwin: That helps Mary, and is along the lines of what I just proposed. Mary Wong: We've submitted a request so we should be on the official schedule for sure. Jay Chapman: Thanks, everyone. Progress continues! Paul Tattersfield: thanks all bye Philip Corwin: I will chair next week Philip Corwin: Bye all

2 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-29sep16-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-29sep16-en.mp3[mailer.…> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep<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 - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Keating - NCUC Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Osvaldo Noa - ISPCP Apologies: Mason Cole – RySG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Emily Barabas Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_…> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Bgy4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 29 September 2016 Petter Rindforth: Hi George, welcome! George Kirikos: Hi folks. George Kirikos: Hi Petter. Michelle DeSmyter: Hi there George and Petter! George Kirikos: Hi Michelle. Petter Rindforth: Hi! Calling in from another conference today, so I hope that you will not hear to much external noice. Paul Tattersfield: Hi everyone George Kirikos: Welcome Paul. George Kirikos: I can hear you, Petter. Philip Corwin: Good day all George Kirikos: Hi Phil. Mary Wong: Document is unsync'ed for all to scroll. George Kirikos: (we're at the bottom of page 6, top of page 7) George Kirikos: There was a very good piece in the NY Times about the dangers of arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-… Jay Chapman: for clarification - what color are the changes attributable to staff? George Kirikos: More and more federal agencies in the US are also moving against arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/dealbook/arbitration-nursing-hom… Mary Wong: Hi Jay, on screen tje staff changes display in orange in this section Jay Chapman: got it. thanks, Mary George Kirikos: A third piece worth reading, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privat… Mary Wong: No worries - it's starting to look quite colorful, we know. You can also see more clearly in the Word document who made what changes, and in what color. Jay Chapman: 10-4 Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, that was the intent of adding "published" - to make clear it's a publicly available document, not just something sent to the GAC. Philip Corwin: @George--those US cases involve instances in which consumers have been required to waive their access to court, including the bringing of class actions, and to only use arbitration for compalints. very different than UDRP/URS, which are options in addition to court adjudication George Kirikos: Is this document accurate on the different degrees of "consensus" in a PDP? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep… (might be outdated) Paul Tattersfield: George's audio isn't very clear here George Kirikos: Sorry, Paul. Are we at "consensus", if there are just one or two people against Option 1? George Kirikos: i.e. "full consensus" vs. "rough consensus" vs. "consensus" vs. ..... Paul Tattersfield: thanks George George Kirikos: +1 Jay Mary Wong: We can say consensus (without the word rough), and ask for specific objections from the list? Mary Wong: Consensus in the WG Guidelines = where most agree, and only a small minority disagree. George Kirikos: I don't see it as intolerable situation for the IGO --- if the UDRP didn't exist, they would have had to waive immunity. Sending it back to arbitration (with all its weaknesses) is less fair, given they routinely get it wrong. Mary Wong: @Phil, note that the UNCITRAL Rules don't limit the venue/arbitrator/entity to any particular provider. Mary Wong: (that's why we wanted to highlight the distinction between specifying the arbitration entity and the applicable rules for an arbitration) Paul Tattersfield: Human rights came up in the RMP WG, could be relevant here as with a biased arbitration a right to be fairly heard would be have been denied George Kirikos: Footnote 2 of the document I linked to said explicitly: " It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term “Consensus” as this may have legal implications." George Kirikos: (sorry for the formatting) George Kirikos: Vitiating the UDRP/URS decision, though, preserves the "status quo" (i.e. as if the UDRP didn't happen), in the event that the court somehow finds that the waiver was insufficient to overturn the immunity. Paul Tattersfield: An aside: The new font in this chat window is not as clear as the previous chatroom Mary Wong: @Paul T, we just increased the font size - does that help? Paul Tattersfield: yes seems clearer not any larger which is good Paul Tattersfield: thanks :) George Kirikos: Some additional articles on forced arbitration: http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/eliminating-forced-arbitration George Kirikos: And additional reading: http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=7332 Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, we will likely reword this para on consensus. George Kirikos: Not "full consensus", but we have reached "consensus". George Kirikos: (since that's the PDP guidelines) Philip Corwin: Question for staff: Under WG procedures, what level of consensus is required to adopt a recoimmendation in the FINAL report? Thanks Jay Chapman: a second bite at the apple, yes Mary Mary Wong: Thanks, Jay, for clarifying - we just wanted to be sure the WG is aware of and has considered this. Jay Chapman: Thanks, Mary George Kirikos: It's forum shopping.....the IGO isn't restricted from filing a complaint in court (rather than use the UDRP). But, strategically, they would choose the venue where the odds are skewed in their favour (UDRP, arbitration, etc.). George Kirikos: The ability to have recourtse to the national courts isn't just a check on the IGO or the domain name registrant --- it's a check on the entire system of arbitration or UDRP (i.e. on the providers). Otherwise, there can be a permanent deviation from the laws of the various nations. Jay Chapman: Very helpful - thanks, Mary Mary Wong: You're (all) most welcome! Paul Tattersfield: George +1 'a permanent deviation' or worse over time an increasing deviation George Kirikos: +1 Phil Jay Chapman: agree Phil George Kirikos: At least a week for a thorough review. Paul Tattersfield: agrree Phil 2 weeks would be better George Kirikos: (Paul Keating did a first pass, but I know I haven't done as much as I wanted, given it was always changing) George Kirikos: (as did Petter) Philip Corwin: Section 6 is cl;eaely most important, and if were are unable to issue complete draft report pre-Hyderabad we should probably put out Section 6 draft to focus discussion in Hyderabad. On that, do we know yet when this WG will meet there? George Kirikos: Bye folks. Mary Wong: Agree, Phil - we will check on the actual WG meeting time and day. Philip Corwin: That helps Mary, and is along the lines of what I just proposed. Mary Wong: We've submitted a request so we should be on the official schedule for sure. Jay Chapman: Thanks, everyone. Progress continues! Paul Tattersfield: thanks all bye Philip Corwin: I will chair next week Philip Corwin: Bye all

2 1

Recommendfation No 4
by Petter Rindforth Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Dear WG Members, I promised on the meeting last week to come back with some thoughts on further specifications at our Rec no 4, so please see attached version of the first part of that. Looking forward to discuss this further with you later on this week. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

2 1

Updated document and meeting agenda (Re: Recommendation No 4)
by Mary Wong Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Dear all, as agreed on the WG call last week, staff has updated the document based extensively on Petter’s suggested text (thanks so much, Petter!) as well as suggestions and comments made by WG members on the call. Please therefore find attached the updated document for your review and our further discussion on the WG call scheduled for tomorrow. Subject to Petter’s and Phil’s agreement or other preference, the proposed agenda for the call tomorrow is: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of draft recommendations (especially the new text on Options 1 & 2 and generally on Recommendation 4) 3. Discuss any remaining open items noted in previous discussions of the draft recommendations 4. Next steps/next meeting 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 Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Reply-To: "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 16:06 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Recommendfation No 4 Dear WG Members, I promised on the meeting last week to come back with some thoughts on further specifications at our Rec no 4, so please see attached version of the first part of that. Looking forward to discuss this further with you later on this week. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Meeting on Thursday, 22 September 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-22sep16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-22sep16-en.mp3> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep 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 Jim Bikoff - IPC Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Jay Chapman – Individual Osvaldo Novo - ISPCP Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Lori Schulman - IPC Apologies: Mason Cole – RySG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang 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:https://community.icann.org/x/pwS4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 22 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG on Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC. George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? Petter Rindforth:Hi there! George Kirikos:Welcome, Petter. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all George Kirikos:Hi Osvaldo. Paul Tattersfield:Hi All Philip Corwin:Dialing in George Kirikos:Hi Paul & Phil. George Kirikos:I forgot to change my font colour. :-) Philip Corwin:Still waiting for an operator Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, nice shade of blue there George Kirikos:It makes it easier for me to find my own words. George Kirikos:I noticed that a few other people changed their font colour in yesterday's meeting/chat. George Kirikos:<<--- trend setter :-) Paul Tattersfield:I saw that to :) Petter Rindforth:Nice George Kirikos:Lori and Kathy are often here. Not sure about today. George Kirikos:And Paul Keating. Jay Chapman:Hello, all. On adobe connect, but in transit, so only listening in Petter Rindforth:Perfect, thanks George Kirikos:Intead of "notified", perhaps "educated" that the policy permits that workaround. Paul Tattersfield:made aware may be beter than educated Steve Chan:@Phil, regarding my comment (SC25), I meant that I didn't see the explanation in this report. George Kirikos:+1 Paul. George Kirikos:It preserves what would have happened had the IGO been forced to go to court (waiving immunity), ie. if the UDRP was not an option for them in the first place. (i.e. had the UDRP not existed) George Kirikos:Option #1/#2 don't come into play if the IGO brought the action indirectly, i.e. through the agent, licensee, etc. instead of on their own behalf. George Kirikos:As Steve said, though, a "+" for one group might be a "-" for some other group. George Kirikos:Perhaps we'd need to have more than one table, i.e. +/- for IGOs, +/- for registrants, etc. Mary Wong: as this is an initial report, indicating open questions can be helpful in attracting comments ftom the community George Kirikos:Is the process (1) initial report (2) comments (3) analyze comments (4) final report (5) comments (6) GNSO Council, (7) ICANN Board? Mary Wong 2:@George, it's (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7). George Kirikos:Oh, ok. Thanks, Mary. Mary Wong 2:The WG Guidelines permit discretion to also issue a Final Report for comments, but that's rare. Mary Wong 2:Right, thanks Phil Mary Wong 2:Yes, we will certainly include that as much as we can. George Kirikos:I think it has waived it, when it files the UDRP. That's why some IGOs don't want to use the UDRP. George Kirikos:(according to them) Mary Wong 2:@George, that's what we recall as well - that agreeing to MJ and filing a UDRP/URS = waiver (from the IGOs' perspective) Paul Tattersfield:I think it could be read as Prof. Swaine says Mary Wong 2:Maybe we can say something like "Submitting to MJ and filing a complaint may possibly be viewed as a waiver, although the WG expresses no specific view on this legal issue". Paul Tattersfield:small point: UDRP provides an existing work around rather than 'we' Petter Rindforth:I think we can agree that it is a "grey zone" here, and that to avoid any risks IGO's can take the case through agent/licensor, etc George Kirikos:Right, Paul. We just identified it for them -- it's already there, doesn't require a change to the policy. George Kirikos:I wouldn't be in favour of either (A) or (B) -- these seem to be of the same nature as "Option 2" above --- I'd be in favour of option #1. Mary Wong 2:It would probably be helpful to solicit community input on these options too. George Kirikos:These are all just variations of options 2. George Kirikos:*option 2, even Mary Wong 2:@George, they are specific changes to the existing rules, though. Lori Schulman:Agree about the UNCITRAL discussion George Kirikos:Here are some of the UN Specialized agencies -- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unsceb.org_members_… George Kirikos:World Bank is one of them, and they've routinely waived immunity, bringing lawsuits, UDRPs, etc. George Kirikos:3 minutes left -- plan for next week? Paul Tattersfield:Do we look at human rights of registrants? not binding them to arbitration etc. Steve Chan:@Phil, it's not new - there was just an issue in extracting the Google doc to this Word doc Mary Wong:same time same day next week Lori Schulman:2/3 through yay! Paul Tattersfield:Lori did the IGOs get back to you on assignment etc? Lori Schulman:no, have not heard. I did reach out to Brian. Lori Schulman:Will reach out again. Paul Tattersfield:thanks George Kirikos:Licensing, assignment, agent, etc. really alleviates their main concern, imho. Lori Schulman:I also asked for statistics about favorable v unfavorable decisions under UNCITRAL rules George Kirikos:And it's a proven strategy, with blessing from WIPO in their views, and precedents. Lori Schulman:agency typically would not, licensing may and assignment certainly would Lori Schulman:an agent is stepping in the shoes of the party Lori Schulman:its a different legal relationship George Kirikos:True. Steve Chan:Thanks for clarifying Petter Lori Schulman:it would be the license or assignment that would protect George Kirikos:Yes. George Kirikos:Bye folks! Paul Tattersfield:bye all, thanks

1 0

Proposed Agenda for WG call on 22 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear WG members, Please find the proposed agenda (which may be subject to amendment by the co-chairs) for the next WG call scheduled for Thursday 22 September at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continued WG discussion of proposed recommendation and explanatory language (see attached document, on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw) 3. Next steps/next meeting The attached draft attempts to provide the outline for presenting the considerations in selecting either Option 1 or 2. Note, it is not presented as a plusses and minuses as that could potentially depend on the audience – if the WG disagrees with this approach, it can of course be revised. It also provides links to relevant GAC Advice for recommendations 5 and 6, though this has not yet been turned into text. Apologies for the incomplete nature of this draft. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 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 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-15sep16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-15sep16-en.mp3> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep 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: George Kirikos - Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Tattersfield – Individual Lori Schulman - IPC Apologies: David Maher - PIR Mason Cole – RySG ICANN staff: Steve Chan Emily Barbers Dennis Chang Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/0QK4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 15 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC. George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there George!! George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? Philip Corwin:Hello all George Kirikos:Hi Phil. Petter Rindforth:Hi all, and thanks for comments from our last meeting Paul Tattersfield:Hi All George Kirikos:Hey Paul. George Kirikos:Hi Petter. George Kirikos:Are they synchronized? (i.e. it's best to have just 1 version....) Jay Chapman:what i'm seeing is not synced George Kirikos:Clean of Wiki, or clean of Google Docs, or ... ? Jay Chapman:would like to see a version with all comments/edits. is that possible? Jay Chapman:thanks George Kirikos:Perhaps "allow access" might be "improve access"? George Kirikos:Or "to remove obstacles" Paul Tattersfield:Taking a step back don't all IGO's offer some sortof service? George Kirikos:90% of our time will be to refine the last 10% of the document. :-) Lori Schulman:My regrets for being late. Lori Schulman:Was stuck on another call. George Kirikos:(as an aside, it'd be a lot easier to reference this document if all paragraphs/points were numbered, etc.) Lori Schulman:agree with george about formatting Lori Schulman:it would be easier Lori Schulman:to have numbered paragraphs Lori Schulman:we can always change them Lori Schulman:maybe just simple numbers for now and then worry about making it 'pretty" later George Kirikos:Right, for the final version....although easier for us too, since we don't have to reference things as "paragraph beginning with ....", and could instead say "3.1", etc. :-) Philip Corwin:I don't recall any discussion of whether DRP providers ever granted reductions in filing fees George Kirikos:Only for bulk complaints (e.g. multiple domain names). Lori Schulman:Agree with PHIL re: NGO's George Kirikos:(whoever is taking notes, "PRK" for Comment 10 should be "GK" (Paul Keating isn't here today) Paul Tattersfield:Agree with Phil Philip Corwin:Ok with comments 16 & 17 because they clarify the current requirements Steve Chan:@George, I am trying acknowledge what the conversation is about and then attribute you as the commenter George Kirikos:Thanks Steve. Steve Chan:And I'll acknowledge that I'll probably need to go through the transcript/recording to get a fuller record. George Kirikos:Which page are we on? George Kirikos:Nevermind, found it. Paul Tattersfield:which page? Lori Schulman:4 Lori Schulman:at bottom if I am counting right George Kirikos:Instead of "burden on signatory states", perhaps "obligation on signatory states" Paul Tattersfield:thanks Jay Chapman:agree phil George Kirikos:Perhaps we should include Article 6ter in an Appendix, given it is so important? Philip Corwin:Good suggestion, George -- ar at least relevant provisions of 6ter, depending on length George Kirikos:Yes. It's only 1 or 2 pages, I believe. Jay Chapman:Neither is also an option George Kirikos:+1 Jay George Kirikos:Although, we seem to believe that in many/most jurisdictions, an IGO would have been deemed to have waived immunity, and a court would recognize that. Jay Chapman:between option 1 and 2 - option 1 is preferable Lori Schulman:Option 1 doesn't seem to be an option. It forces the IGO to waive its immunity. George Kirikos:Right, Option #1 recognizes that any complainant necessarily waives immunity, if the UDRP didn't exist and had to make a claim in court. George Kirikos:Option #1 says "filing a UDRP in itself doesn't add any additional rights/obligations for complainants" George Kirikos:(I support Option #1 too, for the record) George Kirikos:Lots of noise on audio? George Kirikos:Can't understand her. Jay Chapman:white noise in background George Kirikos:Is she on a landline? George Kirikos:Or VOIP? George Kirikos:Very noisy. George Kirikos:(landline is better than a cell phone, usually) George Kirikos:I hear Petter perfectly. Philip Corwin:We should also emphasize in an extended explanation that part B of rec#4, allowing action to be brought by assignee, agent or licensee, should eliminate most assertions of sovereign immunity at "appaleals" stage, provinding that the court recognizes validity of the original procedural transfer of rights Lori Schulman:I was on VOIP. Can someone please call out to +1202704-0408 Philip Corwin:Couldn't make out Lori when she was speaking Jay Chapman:agree, Phil George Kirikos:Right, Phil. IGOs concerned about immunity have routes around it, using the assignee, agent, licensee. Philip Corwin:that's APPEALS stage in my comment George Kirikos:If they're not concerned about immunity, they can file under their own name. Lori Schulman:I agreed with Phil, that we should put more explanation in about the group's thinking and the pros and cons George Kirikos:Can someone dial out to Lori? Lori Schulman:also the how rare instances of IGO enforcement occur George Kirikos:Lori: or call 1-866-692-5726 George Kirikos:code = IGO George Kirikos:(toll-free call) Lori Schulman:Although, perhaps there is a low instance because of risk of immunity waiver Lori Schulman:I will call out Lori Schulman:no worries George Kirikos:Will this Working Group be dissolved at some point? i.e. will the IGOs be incentivized to wait to make their "concrete proposal", i.e. gaming it. George Kirikos:Sound is a lot better now, Lori. Philip Corwin:Now you are understandable Lori George Kirikos:Some VOIP providers aren't good.....compression, etc. George Kirikos:i.e. add colour on the pros/cons George Kirikos:Or "C", neither option 1 or 2. George Kirikos:I'd like to ask Lori if she thinks the licensee, asignee, etc. methods aren't viable? George Kirikos:(and agent) George Kirikos:So, if we get the IGOs onside on that, your concerns would be reduced? George Kirikos:Plus, we already have WIPO views on the licensee, and precedent on the assignee specfically for an IGO case. Lori Schulman:George, where is the WIPO viewed archived? Lori Schulman:I meant views Lori Schulman:I don't recall reading it George Kirikos:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/ Lori Schulman:or discussing it Lori Schulman:thanks. George Kirikos:1.8 = licensee option George Kirikos:And, we already discussed the WIPO case where an IGO assigned rights to a law firm, and won the dispute. Lori Schulman:George, my apologies. I don't recall the discussion. I can look it up. George Kirikos:See page 26-27 of the Swaine report, which mentions assignment. Lori Schulman:I love you guys. 2 years is nothing... Lori Schulman::) George Kirikos:(we had discovered that decision before Swaine's report, and Swaine mentioned it because we brought it up as an alternative) Lori Schulman:OK, I will go over Swaine's report again. Lori Schulman:Thanks for the reminder. Jay Chapman:thanks, all George Kirikos:What time next week? George Kirikos:Normal time next week? (noon eastern time?) Philip Corwin:Bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:bye

1 0

Proposed Agenda for WG call on 15 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear WG members, Apologies for the later delivery, but here is the proposed agenda (which may be subject to amendment by the co-chairs) for the next WG call scheduled for Thursday 15 September at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Continued WG discussion of proposed recommendation language (see attached document, on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw, and/or as a Google Doc with comments/edits from WG members: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1awxxvMFfmMMpOZEEE-Aa2mHnyk-l27La8U1rfhX…) Begin review of explanatory text for recommendations. 3. Next steps/next meeting 4. AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Draft recommendations document on wiki and Google Docs
by Mary Wong Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear WG members, Staff has uploaded the document containing the draft language for our possible preliminary recommendations to the WG wiki space, where you will also find a link to the Google Doc for possible editing/comments: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw. Please note that, for the Google Doc, the comments that were inserted in the text for the Word document are marked in the document but show up as endnotes. As agreed on the WG call this past Wednesday, the call this week will focus on those remaining recommendations that may need further WG member input (e.g. Recommendation #4) and the “body” of the text for each draft Recommendation. 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

Attendance and mp3 / IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 17:00 UTC
by Yesim Nazlar Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 17:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-08sep16-en.mp3 On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Mason Cole – RySG Lori Schulman - IPC Gary S. Campbell - GAC Apologies: David Maher - RySG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang Yeşim Nazlar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/37rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Yeşim Nazlar ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 08 September 2016 Yesim Nazlar:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 08 September 2016 at 17:00 UTC Yesim Nazlar:Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/UxmsAw George Kirikos:Hi folks! Paul Tattersfield:Hi George Kirikos:Hey Paul. Paul Tattersfield:How's things in Canada? George Kirikos:Great here, thanks. How are you today? Paul Tattersfield:Great thanks, were having an Indian Summer so it's a good time of year Philip Corwin:Hello all Mary Wong:First things first, welcome back Steve Chan from medical leave! George Kirikos:Nice to hear things went well, Steve. Steve Chan:Thanks Phil, Mary, everyone! Mason Cole:Good to have you back, Steve! George Kirikos:Sounds good, Phil. George Kirikos:#1 shouldn't be controversial. Jay Chapman:#1 good George Kirikos:We're just focusing on the BOLD language, for now. Jay Chapman:i do have questions about the final paragraph of the content for rec #1, but sounds like we're discussing this later Mary Wong:Yes, that's right, Phil George Kirikos:Is there an email with the staff concerns that was sent to the mailing list?? Mary Wong:@George, we have only discussed this with the co-chairs for now, as a follow up to last week's WG call George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. Mary Wong:But if the co-chairs wish, we can forward that to the WG of course. Jay Chapman:that would help, Mary George Kirikos:+1 Phil. I think the UDRP panelists would give standing. George Kirikos:One additional argument would be that it would fall under 3(xiii) George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en George Kirikos:"re warranted under these Rules and under applicable law," i.e. the words "and under applicable law" would trigger standing. Yesim Nazlar:Lori Schulman has joined on the phone bridge only Lori Schulman:I am now online. Thank you Yesim Nazlar:Lori Schulman is now on AC as well Paul Tattersfield:Hi Lori Lori Schulman:Hi Paul Yesim Nazlar:Gary S. Campbell joined George Kirikos:1.7 of the WIPO overviews also show how "unregistered" rights can be demonstrated. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#17 Gary S Campbell:Hi Guys Lori Schulman:Thank you. I heard the end of your opinion. I will listen to the recording. George Kirikos:Welcome, Gary. Paul Tattersfield:+1 George the registration of rights is only a marker in time George Kirikos:Thanks Phil. George Kirikos:Page 5 of 11. George Kirikos:(very bottom of page 5) Lori Schulman:I am missing page 5 Lori Schulman:can't seem to scroll to it George Kirikos:Here's the text of Article 6ter: http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/article_6ter.html Lori Schulman:Using the copy Mary sent last night George Kirikos:I assume we want to capture the language "is not of such a nature as to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned" ?? Lori Schulman:That was my typing sorry. George Kirikos:and also "such use or registration is probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organization." George Kirikos:Changing that would mean creating new law, which we shouldn't contemplate. George Kirikos:Where it says "agent or licensee", perhaps make it "agent, assignee, or licensee"? (i.e. add "assignee" as a potential route) George Kirikos:I would be in favour of Option #1, because it most closely reflects the "status quo" if we did a thought experiment of "what would happen if the UDRP never existed". i.e. IGO would waive immunity to bring a court dispute, if the UDRP doesn't exist. If Option 2 exists, then it would support gaming by complainants. Lori Schulman:George, what do you mean by gaming? George Kirikos:I'll try to get in queue. Lori Schulman:ok Jay Chapman:exactly George George Kirikos:* 6 to unmute Mary Wong:FWIW Lori's concern is one shared by staff as well. Jay Chapman:the issue here is not immunity, it is the likelihood that a registrant's domain name can be taken away from them Jay Chapman:without due process Jay Chapman:due process = via a court of mutual jurisdiction Mary Wong:Our reasons include the fact that a successful plea of immunity is not the same substantive ground as vitiating a panel decision. George Kirikos:New hand. George Kirikos:We posted evidence of cases where courts overturned arbitrators. Mary Wong:@George, yes, but after consideration of the actual case facts, not simply based on an IGO successfully pleading immunity, surely? George Kirikos:IF arbitrators can't be trusted to give the correct decision, then removing the court option makes those arbitrators unaccountable. Lori Schulman:The system is not predictable. You cannot have a 100% predicatble system. George Kirikos:Courts are far more protective of due process than arbitration. Lori Schulman:Judges make incorrect decisions too. We through ourselves at the mercy of any system. Lori Schulman:throw George Kirikos:Yes, but courts have multiple levels of appeals, etc. Lori Schulman:George I get that but IGO's are not typical rightsholders Lori Schulman:that's the whole point George Kirikos:I disagree, Lori. IGOs still have to go to the courts if I start selling UNESCO biscuits, etc. George Kirikos:My devil's argument would be "get rid of the UDRP completely", Option #3. Lori Schulman:George, totally unacceptable to trademark owners and you know that. George Kirikos:What would IGOs (and TM holders) have as choices under Option #3?? George Kirikos:The "bargain" in the creation of the UDRP was that it wouldn't override the courts. Lori Schulman:The point of the UDRP was to make the system efficient and reasonably reliable for all concerned. George Kirikos:THe national courts still existed, for either side to use, if the decision was incorrect. Mary Wong:@George, it's likely that Option 3 is outside the scope of this WG. George Kirikos:I disagree, Lori. Vehemently. Lori Schulman:Yes, but the UDRP is geared toward private parites. Lori Schulman:private parties Lori Schulman:we don't have private parties here Lori Schulman:we have a governmental org Lori Schulman:How is that treated in Canada? George Kirikos:If you want a "more efficient" system, you could go the "URS" 1 page form, for the UDRP. THat would be very efficient. George Kirikos:Wouldn't get due process, though. Lori Schulman:URS does not impose permanent remedies Lori Schulman:names get recirculated not redelegated Lori Schulman:or transferred Mary Wong:And my hand is up too Lori Schulman:George, I am talking about problems related to IGO's Jay Chapman:Where an IGO licenses its rights to a third party for UDRP assertion, an option 1 or 2 would never arise, because immunity is not at issue George Kirikos:+1 Jay. We gave them the mechanism. They would only choose to avoid the licensing, etc., if they think they can game the outcome. George Kirikos:Sound was breaking up there. George Kirikos:I wasn't seriously proposing Option #3, but I am saying that Option #1 is more consistent with a hypothetical Option #3. George Kirikos:Should we jump to #5 first? Lori Schulman:i will defer my time to Mary Mary Wong:Right, George, understood - so just noting for the record, nothing more. George Kirikos:(bottom of page 10) George Kirikos:Oops, looks like we have Rec #6 too. Lori Schulman:I am not talking about parallel systems Lori Schulman:I am talking about arbitration as a reasonable road to address the concerns of an important minority of rights holders = IGO's Mary Wong:@Petter, this could be one of the open questions for which the WG seeks public input. George Kirikos:Reasonable for one side, but not both, Lori. George Kirikos:Mandatory arbitration has too many issues. Lori Schulman:George, we can find decisions that run favorable to registrants and investors Lori Schulman:As does court action for IGO's --too many serious, complicated issues Lori Schulman:UNESCO can take make roads to deal with its biscuits but lets stick to domain centered issues Lori Schulman:many George Kirikos:I disagreee, Lori. The law should be the same for biscuits as it is for domain names. Lori Schulman:demands, negotiation, mediation, arbitration. Court should never be a first resort George Kirikos:We shouldn't be creating new laws, here, just reflecting existing laws. Lori Schulman:We are. Lori Schulman:I believe re IGO immunity. George Kirikos:IGO waives that immunity, when it is the complainant. George Kirikos:It is 100% shielded, if it doesn't want to file any complaint. Lori Schulman:the standards of proof for actions in trademark vs domain cases aer not the same George Kirikos:Let's suppose an IGO hacks my domain name registrar, and steals my domain name. Lori Schulman:I am not a litigator so I can't go into deep details but I know that each cause of action has different legal hurdles George Kirikos:I would be unable to sue them to recover my domain -- they have immunity there, because they are the defendant. Lori Schulman:trademark claims v domain claims George Kirikos:However, in the opposite situation, as complainant, they have to waiver their immunity, to take property through the legal system from someone else. Lori Schulman:then there is a forum for your recourse Lori Schulman:that's how it works in U.S. a special court for the types of claims you describe so why not special forum Lori Schulman:for IGO issue George Kirikos:Which "IGO special court" exists for biscuit disputes? Lori Schulman:in US it court of claims Lori Schulman:don't know outside of us Lori Schulman:it is a court but with special rules for USG entities Lori Schulman:I don't know about IGO's Lori Schulman:Wish more were here to defend Lori Schulman:that may say something too Lori Schulman:can't sue for TM and Copyight claims in US Lori Schulman:it's an issue, I won't deny that but agencies are generally careful but no always George Kirikos:Are we back to 12 noon next week? Or sticking to 1 pm (Eastern time)? Mary Wong:Yes, I think so, Phil Mary Wong:Not at the moment Mary Wong:Will do, Phil Lori Schulman:This was lively. Thanks everyone. Jay Chapman:appreciate the discussion George Kirikos:Bye folks. Mary Wong:Thank you all! Jay Chapman:Bye everyone - thanks Yesim Nazlar:Next Call is set to 15 September at 16:00 UTC Lori Schulman:thank you phil Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye all Yesim Nazlar:Thank you all!

1 0

Letter from NGPC to the GAC from January 2015
by Mary Wong Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Working Group members, Here is the link to the letter we mentioned on the call today. This is a letter that the NGPC sent to the GAC in January 2015, querying potential concerns of some GAC members regarding the resolution of IGO curative rights issues: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/chalaby-to-schneider…. 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

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Agenda for WG call on 8 September and initial draft text for preliminary recommendations
by Mary Wong Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear Working Group members, Here is the draft agenda (which is still subject to further amendment by the co-chairs) for the next WG call scheduled for Thursday 8 September at 1700 UTC: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. WG discussion of draft text proposed for Section 6 of the WG’s Initial Report (see attached document); the purpose of this discussion is to ensure that the language of the draft recommendations captures substantively the main points of the WG’s deliberations and conclusions 3. WG discussion as to whether any open questions or remaining topics that are not currently addressed by the draft text needs to be included 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note that the draft text contains several comments and questions from the co-chairs and staff for further discussion by the full WG. 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

attendance and mp3 / IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting - Thursday, 01 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 2, 2016

Sept. 2, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 01 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-01sep16-en.mp3 On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep 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 Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Jay Chapman - Individual Paul Tattersfiled - Individual Mason Cole - RySG Lori Schulman - IPC Jim Bikoff - IPC Holly Lance - IPC Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa Kathy Kleiman Steve Chan (Staff) ICANN staff: Mary Wong Glen de Saint Gery Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 01 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the Thursday, 01 September 2016 Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/fxisAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:Hi there! George Kirikos:Hi Petter. Jay Chapman:Hello, everyone George Kirikos:Hi Jay. Paul Tattersfield:Hi All George Kirikos:Hi Paul. George Kirikos:Some folks might be trying for a 5-day long weekend. :-) Lori Schulman:Hi Terri Agnew:Welcome Lori Schulman Lori Schulman:I am in favor of 5 day weekend. Lori Schulman:Mary, you sound like Lauren Bacall Mary Wong:@Lori, haha - thanks! Terri Agnew:Welcome Phil Corwin Mary Wong:@Petter, yes that is correct Philip Corwin 2:Hello all George Kirikos:Welcome clone of Phil. :-) Philip Corwin:Have no idea how that happened, as I only logged in once Mary Wong:Phil has a doppelganger Philip Corwin:But my alter ego has been sent back to the attic ;-) George Kirikos:I wish I had a clone -- it could do all my work, so I could relax. :-) George Kirikos:lol Phil George Kirikos:Is anyone here against the emerging consensus? (i.e. like the movie "12 Angry Men", perhaps they should have the floor, if they exist) George Kirikos:Article 6ter is more about blocking rights. Paul Tattersfield:but that doen't matter for UDRP does it Mary? George Kirikos:But, the blocking right doesn't make it a total blocking, if the proposed TM application isn't going to cause confusion, etc. George Kirikos:So, in a sense, it implies that Article 6ter registration is akin to (unregistered) TM rights, for the goods/services the IGO provides. Mary Wong:@Paul, that's part of our question. It seems that the first ground under the UDRP depends on having substantive trademark rights. That isn't the same protection as what Article 6ter provides. George Kirikos:Of course, the IGOs can/do register those TM rights in some nations, too, to be more direct than their unregistered marks. Mary Wong:And our concern here is the risk of expanding legal rights in the DNS where there isn't a substantive equivalent in the TM realm. Mary Wong:@George, blocking a third party from registering a TM isnt the same as having substantive ritghts you can enforce. Paul Tattersfield:the registration of trademarks don't confer the rights just evidence them George Kirikos:True, Mary, although it's somewhat implied that the IGO must have TM rights, otherwise why would they register in the Article 6ter DB in the first place? Mary Wong:@Paul, yes, but the fact remains (doesn't it?) that there must be a substantive legal right. So the question is, does 6ter confer that on IGO names and acronyms? George Kirikos:+1 Paul. Mary Wong:6ter language - countries must "refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks" George Kirikos:If one consults with the USPTO TM database, and searches for "Article 6ter", there are 704 marks under the 8900xxxxx series, that are in the database. George Kirikos:Under "Refine Search", I use: (article 6ter)[ALL] Paul Tattersfield:exactly 6ter allows those entries Philip Corwin:Thanks Mary. So that language clearly goes beyond just blocking -- allows for subsequent invalidation or prohibitions on use. Mary Wong:Text of 6ter (see (1)(a)) - http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/article_6ter.html Paul Tattersfield:@ phil in all classes or conflicting classes Philip Corwin:When I say "standing" I mean the qualification to initiate a UDRP or URS due to rights in a name or acronym that is identical or confusingly similar to the allegedly infringing domain(s). Mary Wong:ok thanks Phil Mary Wong:So basically Policy Guidance (authoritative) that says "TM rights" under the UDRP and URS includes, for IGOs only, the protections under 6ter (if they fulfill the filing and notification requirements). Philip Corwin:Article 6ter clearly creates certain rights in signatory and WTO nations George Kirikos:WIPO Views, #1.7, is also very broad, making standing fairly easy for IGOs. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#17 Paul Tattersfield:(1)(a) should be sufficient to prevent a claimant trying to take away domain from a state or an IGO since (1)(b) extends a subset of a state's rights found in (1)(a) to IGOs. but (1)(a) can not be used to secure the property and rights of others who are not infringing a state's (or IGO's) marks. Philip Corwin:@Paul--I believe the question of classes in addressed when an examiner looks at the actual use of the domain -- e.g., where an apple-related domain has content related to electronics or to fruits or something else unrelated to the famous California company Mary Wong:We just wanted to raise our concern over the possible distinction between a "right to prevent third party registrations" and a "substantive legal right that can be enforced". Paul Tattersfield:This is reinforced in (1)(c) which goes on to mention cases where (1)(a) shall not apply are where "it is not" and "is probably not" of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organisation Paul Tattersfield:This is very important because a more broad interpretation risks creating a false sense of entitlement, in the same way some companies (and even certain panellists) when presented with a newly registered trademark feel UDRP gives them an explicit right to have a domain transferred even when there is no infringement whatsoever of underlying goods or services. George Kirikos:Right, Paul. Philip Corwin:@Mary--the quoted language from A6ter appears to confer substantive legal rights in signatory nations Lori Schulman:To my recollection from my examiner days there absolutely are substantive legal rights Lori Schulman:Mary is first Mary Wong:@Lori, the recommendation under consideration here is whether an IGO that just has an Article 6ter notification - without any national TM registrations - can file a UDRP or URS complaint. Sounds like the WG is inclined to say yes. Paul Tattersfield:the existing rrights are already protected under udrp whether or whether there is not a newly minted trademark Lori Schulman:Yes, I am inclined to say yes Lori Schulman:I may have confused the question. Lori Schulman:My apologies. The broad statements about new TM registrations is what raised an issue for me Lori Schulman:Thanks, Paul. George Kirikos:Tarnishing. Lori Schulman:Yes, but they have uses in commerce Lori Schulman:performing public services, publishing content, etc George Kirikos:Even non-profits have services, e.g. "fundraising" or "promotion of XXXXXX" or .... Lori Schulman:There is a duality with IGOs and INGOs Lori Schulman:It's the duality that is prompting this WG Mary Wong:THanks, all - this has been very helpful and instructive for staff as we try to put "meat on the bones" of the outline report. Philip Corwin:IMHO if an IGO is eligible to assert A6ter protections it can assert UDRP or URS standing, regardless of whether it is on the GAC's list Lori Schulman:I agree with Phil George Kirikos:Article 6ter database seems to have some State Emblems (registered by countries, not IGOs), so we should be careful to state that Article 6ter registration in itself is just for IGOs. George Kirikos:(otherwise countries could try to "expand" rights, to claim their country names, etc., if they get rid of the figurative elements of those emblems) Mary Wong:@Petter, do we have a conclusion(s) from the WG about the policy options for immunity? Philip Corwin:@george--we can make clear in our standing recommendations that they apply only to IGOs that have registered under A6ter George Kirikos:e.g. search for "Canada" or "Iceland" in the Article 6ter online database. George Kirikos:Thanks Phil. George Kirikos:No change in the policy for immunity, but greater education for IGOs. Mary Wong:I ask b/c we didnt get any responses or much discussion about the UNCITRAL rules as I recall. George Kirikos:(e.g. assignment, licensing, etc.) Mary Wong:More broadly, the pros and cons about either using them as an arbitral appeal option, or amending the Mutual Jurisdiction clause wording (per Prof Swaine). George Kirikos:I wouldn't add the UNICTRAL section to the UDRP. Paul Tattersfield:Should we suggest that the RPM WG look at a voluntary internal appeals process for UDRPs the IGO's raised the issue of outlier decisions by panels? George Kirikos:(i.e. wouldn't change the UDRP at all, but suggest greater education) Mary Wong:Thanks Phil. George Kirikos:The IGO would have waived immunity, though, and IGOs are perfectly capable of waiving that immunity, as per the report. George Kirikos:(by Swaine) Lori Schulman: I have asked Brian Beckham for any data INCITRAL rules favoring UN agencies as a data point Lori Schulman:I can't type. My apologies. George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a nice long weekend. Lori Schulman:Data about decisions for or against UN agencies under UNCITRAL Lori Schulman:Ciao George Kirikos:That'd be 1 pm Eastern time, then? Fine for me. Paul Tattersfield:thanks all , bye Mary Wong:@George, yup Philip Corwin:Yes 1 pm ET Mary Wong:And 1 a.m. for me in Asia :) George Kirikos:Bye folks. Philip Corwin:Bye all

1 0

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