April 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Issues raised by Small discussion group concerning IGO and Red Cross identifiers
by George Kirikos May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Hi folks, During today's call, reference was made to the Small discussion group concerning IGO and Red Cross identifiers, whose mailing list archives can be visited via: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ Our own Phil Corwin is on that mailing list, and doing an excellent job in my opinion of representing our work to date. I've been going through the archives, and have some comments/thoughts below: 1. in the post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-March/000116.html the OECD rep made bold and overbroad assertions about the nature of IGO protections in national legislation, stating: "Canada's legislation in this regard extends beyond simple refusal to register a conflicting trademark: §9(1) of the Trade-marks Act states that "No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark..." That's a highly misleading statement/snippet, perhaps assuming that no one would actually look up the full text of the Canadian legislation. I did. It's at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3 and it makes clear via explicit language that there are excepted uses: 9(2) Excepted uses (2) Nothing in this section prevents the adoption, use or registration as a trade-mark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark ..... (ii) an armorial bearing, flag, emblem or abbreviation mentioned in paragraph (1)(i.3), *****unless the use of the mark is likely to mislead the public as to a connection between the user and the organization.***** (emphasis added) And section 9(1)(i.3) was (on the same page) referencing IGOs and Article 6ter: "(i.3) any armorial bearing, flag or other emblem, or the name or any abbreviation of the name, of an international intergovernmental organization, if the armorial bearing, flag, emblem, name or abbreviation is on a list communicated under article 6ter of the Convention or pursuant to the obligations under the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set out in Annex 1C to the WTO Agreement stemming from that article, and the Registrar gives public notice of the communication;" So, it's clear that that the "Excepted uses" in Canada law recognizes coexistence explicitly, mirroring the language of Article 6ter section 1(c) which made the recognition of coexistence via exceptions for: "when the use or registration referred to in subparagraph (a), above, is not of such a nature as to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned and the armorial bearings, flags, emblems, abbreviations, and names, or if 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." and which is reflected in our own group's recommendations (which the IGOs did not like, as they seem to ignore section 1(c) of Article 6ter repeatedly). So, I hope this is brought to the attention of the "Small discussion group", to ensure that they're not making incorrect assessments of the nature of the IGO protections based on misleading statements from the IGOs. 2. In the post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000132.html where, as we discussed today during the call, Bruce Tonkin proposed asking for external legal advice regard relevant national laws in relation to IGO protection, "before being able to design a new dispute resolution process." I am confident that at least in Canada and the USA, that no such national laws limit the due process rights of those accused of misusing the IGO marks --- the accused would still "get to have their day in court." In the past, we discussed the possibility of allowing representatives of national authorities to bring the UDRP/URS actions (instead of the IGOs themselves), as a way forward. Perhaps this should be revisited, to handle the immunity issue once and for all. National authorities would obviously face no question of immunity before their own courts (except perhaps those in totalitarian regimes where due process doesn't exist). If a Canadian entity is accused of misuse of an IGO by a Canadian national authority in a UDRP/URS, a decision could be appealed by either side to the relevant Canadian courts, leaving the IGO out of the process and shielded from the immunity issue. Bruce Tonkin might be sympathetic to that possibility, when he mentioned in a later post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000147.html "a Government on their behalf" can act to protect IGOs via the laws of their jurisdictions. He also wrote: " I am assuming that it is in the "public interest" for an IGO or Government to take some action to stop the mis-use - just trying to be clear "how" that would be done." If, in the public interest, we explicitly allow governments or national authorities to bring the UDRP/URS, as "agents" of the IGO, this would appear to solve many issues. We already issued policy guidance about "assignees, licensees and agents", so perhaps we could be more explicit in our report about permitting national authorities to be the agents of the IGOs, as part of our "workaround"?? [Of course, the national authorities don't have to use the UDRP/URS at all, they could just go directly to their courts using existing judicial mechanisms.] Any ICANN-developed process *needs* to ensure that full due process for domain name registrants (including via access to the courts) is not eliminated, otherwise ICANN would be making up new law, beyond what exists in national laws. 3. The rep from WIPO stated at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000134.html "Standing for IGOs which need not be expressly grounded in trademark law as such, as IGOs are created by governments under international law and are in an objectively different category of rights holders." which is an odd statement, given that the OECD rep previously pointed explicitly at Canada's Trademark Act! While other nation's laws differ, we should not be creating new DRPs for every possible event of fraud or misuse of the DNS --- that's what the national courts are there for. When Barclays plead guilty of manipulating FX rates: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_to… the national authorities didn't seek "relief" for that disgusting and illegal behaviour via the UDRP or some other DRP created by ICANN, or argue that ICANN should create a new DRP for FX manipulation. There has been talk about creating a "Copyright" version of the UDRP, for example, or other DRPs. ICANN should not be wasting limited volunteer resources and time via mission creep, trying to replace or supercede the national laws of 200+ members. At least with the UDRP/URS, there was a strong "lowest common denominator" amongst those national trademark laws, which are reflected in the policies, and the policies directly permit court action at any time, either before, during or after a panel decision. It's clear that the IGOs want to eliminate those due process protections of the courts, by compelling arbitration, by revisiting issues that have been looked at for nearly 20 years (and repeatedly rejected by the community). 4. As I've noted in the past (and noted in my comments on our draft report) https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… IGOs seem to misunderstand their choices. As I wrote: "Note that the above roadmap is in addition to all the other legal and non-legal options that an IGO has, including: - sending cease and desist letters - filing WHOIS accuracy complaints (most criminals use false WHOIS) - contacting registrars when there is abusive/illegal conduct - contacting payment processors (Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, etc.) in the event of financial fraud - contacting webhosting companies to take down illegal content - pursuing court action as a first option - asking law enforcement to pursue criminal behaviour" The entire work of that "small discussion group" seems to want to reinvent the wheel, and replace all existing law in 200+ countries with poorly thought out ICANN mechanisms that eliminate due process for registrants. 5. One of the ICANN board members stated at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000139.html that "I agree, excellent idea, but selection of the expert will be key. The GNSO had asked for a legal opinion before, but it was a US expert whose conception of international law was not necessarily shared by the Europeans!" Not only is this an unfair assessment of Professor Swaine's work, it seems to suggest that IGOs can "massage" the process and predetermine the outcome through selection of an "expert" who will parrot their incorrect views. This is alarming. While he seemed to backtrack a bit in a followup post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000142.html it still seems that there are issues of gaming the outcome via selection of a "sympathetic expert". We saw that in the new gTLD process itself, when ICANN commissioned dubious external "economic reports" by the Compass Group in order to support a predetermined outcome desired by the ICANN Board. In conclusion, I think this demonstrates why having a "parallel" group is a bad idea, because it's trying to redo our comprehensive work, and has fewer eyes on it compared to this formal PDP. It makes little sense to me that IGOs have ample time to participate in that mailing list, yet had no time to participate in our PDP as members. I think that highlights the "forum shopping" argument, that IGOs are looking for sympathetic forums (of which binding arbitration is an example) to gain advantages of an uneven playing field. Other members of this PDP working group might want to take some time to review those mailing list archives (took me a couple of hours, although I didn't review any audio or transcripts or their Wiki), to look for other factual errors and issues that might not have been caught by that group. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

5 6

[gnso-secs] MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 27 April 2017
by Julie Bisland April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-27apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3kbgsm5d25/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…>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 (co-chair) Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Phil Corwin - BC (co-chair) Mason Cole - RySG Paul Keating - NCUC Apologies: none ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Terri Agnew Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/MtjRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 27 April 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Terri Agnew:We would like to introduce Julie Bisland as GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator. She has started training with us this week. George Kirikos:Hi folks. Philip Corwin:dialing in Paul Keating:hello all Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Philip Corwin:on audio now Julie Bisland:Welcome, Mason Cole George Kirikos:Is that mailing list public? George Kirikos:(link?) Mary Wong:Yes, hold on Mary Wong:Here is the mailing list for the Red Cross-IGO Discussion Group, comprising representatives from the GAC, GNSO, Board and facilitator Bruce Tonkin as well as some ICANN support staff: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ Mary Wong:There is also a wiki page, which staff will update with links to the transcripts from the Copenhagen discussions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Paul Keating:THis seems like only a means of delay. Mary Wong:@Paul, it is not. I can explain furher. Paul Keating:None of those are included within the standing elements of the UDRP George Kirikos:That's fine, Phil. George Kirikos:(jusy wanted to line up, but Petter can cut in line) :-) George Kirikos:*just George Kirikos:Since we're *giving* them standing, and relying on the other 2 prongs of the UDRP/URS test to save the domain name registrant, it's not clear to me how the legal expert's opinion could change our report. Paul Keating:Mary, can you please pull up our marching orders as a WG? Mary Wong:@George, the problem is that 6ter does not give standing. George Kirikos:@Mary: our report is saying it's enough for UDRP/URS standing. Mary Wong:@Paul, the charter is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Mary Wong:@George, yes, but as we heard from the USG and others, it is not a correct application of international law. George Kirikos:@Mary: I assume you mean "standing to file a TM lawsuit". Mason Cole:OK, thanks Phil. George Kirikos:@Mary: if they stick to that interpretation, then there's also no international law that forces those that have no relationship with IGOs into arbitration with them. Petter Rindforth:We keep our fingers crossed ;-) Mary Wong:@George, no - standing to file under the UDRP if it is not based on trademark law and if Article 6ter cannot be used in its place. George Kirikos:i.e. they want us to invent new law to compel arbitration. We're saying "you can use the UDRP, and we'll hold our nose and say "Article 6ter" is close enough for standing" Mary Wong:Please, everyone - this is not an idea from the IGOs. It is not an idea raised to delay our work. George Kirikos:We're saying Article 6ter is evidence of common law TM rights. Mary Wong:@George, again, what we are told is that it is not correct legally to use 6ter that way, whatever we might feel about it. George Kirikos:And that then keeps it within the TM world, of the UDRP/URS> Mary Wong:@George, if they have unregistered rights similar to TM, 6ter is unnecessary. They would have standing under the existing UDRP rules. George Kirikos:@Mary: if they want to rely on the law 100%, then they should point me to the law that says I need to go to binding arbitration if I start selling UNESCO brand cookies, or start a "WHO" health magazine. Mary Wong:@George, it's not the IGOs who are proposing this. George Kirikos:@Mary: Yes, article 6ter is unnecessary. Their common law rights were enough. i.e. they should have *some* connection with the the term they're saying is similar to the domain name. George Kirikos:e.g. if UNESCO wants to file a UDRP over "Math.com", show me they have some connection to the term "math". George Kirikos:But, if they want to file over "UNESCO-phishing.tld", they can easily demonstrate a connection to the term "Unesco" in that domain. George Kirikos:+1 Paul Keating Paul Keating:if we do not put this to bed, then it will continue to live and become a behind the scenes political effort. Philip Corwin:Paul, Mason, if you are done speaking please lower your hands. Thanks Mary Wong:@Paul, the discussion group was set up with a public mailing list, and with open dialogues in Copenhagen, to make sure it would not be a behind the scenes political effort. George Kirikos:The IGOs seem to have a lot of time to participate in that informal mailing list. I see WIPO on the RPMs mailing list. Why couldn't they join our work for the past 3 years? Mason Cole:Old hand George Kirikos:Common law TMs are good enough, without *registered* TMs. Mary Wong:@George, WIPO is an observer to this WG. George Kirikos:ICANN should use some of that $200 million+ and get the IGOs to file 100 Benelux or Pakistani registered TMs. George Kirikos:It would be a lot cheaper than hiring an external legal expert, and they'd get those TMs in a few months. George Kirikos:100 x $200 = $20,000, tops. George Kirikos:(and some of the IGOs already have registered TMs) George Kirikos:There were "notes" made in a pod during our comments review. Were those notes saved somewhere? (it doesn't seem to have been sent along with the call transcripts) George Kirikos:Those notes captured some of what was new, etc. George Kirikos:(might need to reload the Adobe archive, if the Adobe connect call was saved) Mary Wong:@George, the document Steve mentioned he will upload next reflects those notes in summary form (of topics). George Kirikos:Oh, I see. Thanks Mary. Mary Wong:No worries :) Steve Chan:Here are the comments we reviewed last week: United Nations,Internet Commerce Association, International Atomic Energy Agency, World Bank, UNESCO, Universal Postal Union, International Finance Corporation Paul Tattersfield:Would it be helpful to see the working group tool filled out fully before moving on too far.? Mary Wong:Thanks, Phil, we will do our best. George Kirikos:This goes to the topic we discussed earlier. George Kirikos:(re: hiring another legal expert) George Kirikos:Saying it's strong evidence, rather than "proof" for the first prong will likely be good enough. Paul Tattersfield:+1 Phil George Kirikos:Maybe take a poll here? George Kirikos:Checkmark if you agree? X to disagree with that change? George Kirikos:It's definitely superior to that GAC list, which is not based on any law whatsoever. George Kirikos:It establishes a blocking right for TM regisrations in national TM systems. Paul Tattersfield:the reason 6ter matters is because it reduces the cost of providing evidence George Kirikos:+1 Paul Tattersfield. Mary Wong:@Paul T, sure, but how does it establish standing? George Kirikos:GIs are not allowed in the UDRP, for example. George Kirikos:(champagne.co example, last night) Mary Wong:Having used 6ter doesn't prove an IGO has rights in its acronym, only that it intends to prevent third parties from registering TMs. George Kirikos:GIs = Geographical Indicators Jay Chapman:Agree, Paul - "evidence" of a tm right Paul Tattersfield:Paul K +1 George Kirikos:Checkmark = dial back to "strong evidence" of common law, X = original proposal, "proof" for standing George Kirikos:Maybe David should elaborate? George Kirikos:His Twelve Angry Men moment, to convince us. :-) George Kirikos:We should allow the mailing list participants to weigh in too, but it sounds like "consensus" on #1. George Kirikos:Typically, it would be an unregistered Service Mark for IGOs. (since they don't usually sell goods). George Kirikos:Vitiating the UDRP, vs. binding arbitration. Mary Wong:Shall we pull up the OECD comment for the three reasons they cite? George Kirikos:Most domain name registrant wouldn't voluntarily agree to that entirely separate process suggested by the IGOs. Mary Wong:OECD's reasons start at Page 2 Jay Chapman:the immunity question would be answered by the court George Kirikos:+1 Paul Keating. It maintains the status quo, until there's a final decision. George Kirikos:(final = non-appealable) Paul Keating:My apologies but I must leave the office and call n ow. Thank you everyone. Goodnight. George Kirikos:We didn't get it wrong. Like the USG stated, it might not even be a "real IGO" --- i.e. it might be an IGO not even recognized in certain nations. George Kirikos:If that IGO "isn't real", it couldn't assert immunity. So we got it right. George Kirikos:Otherwise, every party will claim that they are an "IGO", to avoid appeals by domain owners. Gaming. Jay Chapman:+1 George Terri Agnew:Next call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 04 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes George Kirikos:Are we skipping the following week? (due to the GDD) George Kirikos:(like we are for the RPMs working group) Jay Chapman:have to leave now. thanks all! Mason Cole:Turns out I won't be at GDD so could join. George Kirikos:Excellent. George Kirikos:We're making progress. Good work everyone! Mary Wong:Thanks Phil and everyone! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:Bye all Osvaldo Novoa:By

1 0

- Proposed Agenda for WG call on Thursday 27 April 2017 at 1600 UTC
by Steve Chan April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

Dear WG Members, The proposed agenda for the upcoming WG call this Thursday 27 April 2017 at 1600 UTC is as follows; please also note that this call has been scheduled for 90 minutes: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Review Public Comment Review Tool to determine if any comments still warrant review for additional WG discussion 3. Agree on list of topics identified as requiring additional WG discussion or review (see list below) 4. Begin discussion of topics in agenda item 3 5. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item 2, please find the attached Public Comment Review Tool For agenda items 3 and 4, please find the draft list of the new or additional facts, legal arguments and points for consideration, that staff has identified from the WG’s last few calls: 1. Lack of suitability of Article 6ter as a legal basis for standing (various comments submitted) a. What are the alternatives (GAC list, trademark law, unregistered (i.e. what our American members call “common law”) rights, consumer protection statutes, others)? b. Alternatively, is there a way to scale back our recommendation on 6ter, or to have a recommendation that says you first need 6ter to establish procedural standing and it must be coupled with a substantive legal right of some sort? 2. Opposition to Recommendation #4 a. Three reasons provided by OECD b. World Bank commented on reconsidering feasibility of the assignee option c. Did WG ignore or misinterpret part of the Swaine opinion (OECD, World Bank)? 3. Some support emerging for Option #2 4. Further review of arbitration as an option a. See the New York Convention (OECD) b. Is there a difference between recommending arbitration as the sole option for appealing a UDRP decision vs filing a separate, new proceeding in a national court (which is not an appeal from a UDRP panel)? c. GoDaddy requires arbitration per Article 25 of its Universal Terms of Service (However, there is a relationship between registrar and registrant and unclear how widespread this practice is) 5. Further discussion of a separate DRP (GAC, WIPO, IPC) a. See specific recommendations from IPC comment b. Note that WG had tabled discussion of 2007 draft procedure from ICANN staff until after completion of initial review of all comments 6. Function and scope of a Policy Guidance document a. Cannot be used for cases where a recommendation amounts to a substantive change of the UDRP (e.g. if Recommendation 4 Option #1 is adopted) b. Note question on Recommendation 3 by World Bank Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 20 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-20apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7itd16kw48/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=270a392f7eacd741 b08abf3f2654f84519ad6e8cf34f5cf5e6c5e8497ddb0bc4> https://participate.icann.org/p7itd16kw48/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn so-2Dcrp-2Dpdp-2D13oct16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6s Jms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsj Wv9&m=asM5JoG30Yqf49-Nims9k3McNfFtmzlAe1HmuXI6wic&s=0nZvoU1RqsjvPcNWDN_a2vVZ Dp9uXeyGO8NN2dN5h74&e=> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7x cl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m =wBBn3Ar2_mvUeGcM8rpOAyluUFEJFG5lASQ-cAccI2k&s=3BfiwO43tzwlrIbIyBY4Q-14zsFQC X518fLLR8GWR7I&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: David Maher - RySG George Kirikos - Individual Jay Chapman - Individual Paul Tattersfield - Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC (co-chair) Poncelet Ileleji - NPOC Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Phil Corwin - BC (co-chair) Mason Cole - RySG Mary Wong - staff ICANN staff: Evin Erdogdu Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb 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/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/YtLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 20 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 20 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y tLRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ YtLRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ5mvOo2PW A&s=RKqZqSVWHSBjwaI_Smesu6-wRdOjBbEFfNj3blhDXE8&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ5mvOo2PWA&s=RK qZqSVWHSBjwaI_Smesu6-wRdOjBbEFfNj3blhDXE8&e= Evin Erdogdu:Hello all! George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyeone George Kirikos:Welcome, Paul. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks George, did you follow the football you were very unlucky in the fast few minutes George Kirikos:Which football game? Paul Tattersfield:Greece vs Belgium George Kirikos:I wasn't watching. TV overload these days! Terri Agnew:Welcome Jay Chapman George Kirikos:Links to each comment is at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-April/000703.html Jay Chapman:Thanks, Terri Terri Agnew:Welcome Poncelet Ileleji Poncelet Ileleji:THanks Terri George Kirikos:They were explicitly in favour of Option #1 for Recommendation 4, but that wasn't reflected in the spreadsheet. George Kirikos:(same for Jay's comments) Jay Chapman:Yes, thanks, George Jay Chapman:sorry - connectivity issues George Kirikos:Today? Or International Atomic Energy Agency , World Bank, UNESCO, UPU, and International Finance Corporation first? George Kirikos:I got bumped too, Jay, from the audio. Had to dial back in. Terri Agnew:Kathy Kleiman has joined on audio Terri Agnew:If dial outs are needed on the telephone, let me know George Kirikos:Most of the remaining comments are pretty short already (under 5 pages, mostly). George Kirikos:It looks like Rec #1 is not controversial. Even the INGOs didn't bother to comment about it. George Kirikos:So, should we go through those 5 IGO comments today, before the Review Tool? George Kirikos:I was opposed to rec #5 too. Steve Chan:@Petter, these have not been reviewed yet as far as staff understands George Kirikos:Just looking for "new" arguments. George Kirikos:The GoDaddy example appears to be "new". Although, that's distinguishable, because GoDaddy's registrants actually have a contractual relationship with GoDaddy (unlike registrants and IGOs, who have no relationship). George Kirikos:Also, other registrars don't require arbitration. George Kirikos:Did we lose Petter? Petter Rindforth:I'm calling in Terri Agnew:great ,thanks Petter George Kirikos:Welcome back, Petter. George Kirikos:We have to be careful with the next comments. The International Atomic Energy Agency has nukes! :-) George Kirikos:IAEA immunity actually seems to be functional, according to their website, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iaea.org_about_stat ute-23a1-2D15 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iaea.org_about_sta tute-23a1-2D15&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2 dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ 5mvOo2PWA&s=z_tULda8135_L_cdg0-sB0oiSxaLOGqGM1APqp7-wc0&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ5mvOo2PWA&s=z_ tULda8135_L_cdg0-sB0oiSxaLOGqGM1APqp7-wc0&e= George Kirikos:"A. The Agency shall enjoy in the territory of each member such legal capacity and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions." Paul Tattersfield:its not even defending their own assets it is looking to seize others assets for whatever reason George Kirikos:There's an academic article that notes they can waive their immunity, too, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ir.lawnet.fordham.edu_cg i_viewcontent.cgi-3Farticle-3D2017-26context-3Dflr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ir.lawnet.fordham.edu_c gi_viewcontent.cgi-3Farticle-3D2017-26context-3Dflr&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ5mvOo2PWA&s=ZlkQsncPw-Vn3nqub9Gb6kNBC9- y8fQjiQeiVbqTlWw&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=whryeAu2VDAw0A4qCveouUAPvrII88s2GQ5mvOo2PWA&s=Zl kQsncPw-Vn3nqub9Gb6kNBC9-y8fQjiQeiVbqTlWw&e= George Kirikos:Do we know the exact list of members of the IGO small group? (i.e. did each of them submit a comment to us?) George Kirikos:World Bank is interesting, since they've actually won UDRPs. Paul Tattersfield:Surely they only need to register in 1 country to use UDRP George Kirikos:@Paul: Indeed. George Kirikos:I didn't understand that comment by them. Paul Tattersfield:actually they don't even need to register in one country because UDRP doesn't require the registration of a mark for standing George Kirikos:Yes, common law. And Article 6ter is a complement/supplement, to show those common law rights to their usual names. George Kirikos:+1 Petter Paul Tattersfield:+1 Petter George Kirikos:UNESCO George Kirikos:10.b is interesting, since they claim that the mutual jurisdiction won't affect them. :-) Poncelet Ileleji:+1 Peter Paul Tattersfield:On immunity the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) may be worth further study (I don't remember the working group looking at it previously} Paul Tattersfield:Article 14 for example places considerable restrictions on foreign states seeking to invoke immunity in disputes on intellectual property George Kirikos:https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/RecentTexts/English_3_13.pdf George Kirikos:We might be able to get to the International Finance Corporation today (8 minutes left), since the UPU comment is so short. George Kirikos:IFC comment is just one-and-a-half pages. George Kirikos:That's a puzzling comment -- they claim that a domain owner would try to LOSE the UDRP, in order to arrive at court? Very odd. George Kirikos:Oh, I understand it now --- they're saying that a complainant would make the IGO a respondent in the UDRP, in order to get to court. That's something that could take place now. George Kirikos:(but hasnt happened, in 10+ years) George Kirikos:Actually, 18+ years. Steve Chan:Time chec... Steve Chan:*check* Terri Agnew:IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes George Kirikos:Bye folks! Have a great day! Jay Chapman:thanks, all Paul Tattersfield:Thanks Petter, everyone. Bye All Poncelet Ileleji:bye all

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Proposed Agenda for WG call on Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC
by George Kirikos April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

Hi folks, Are we planning to review all the comments? There are comments by individuals opposed to the elimination of their access to the courts, whose comments do not appear to be reflected in the spreadsheet tool (i.e they should be counted for Option 1 in question 4). Even my own comments didn't seem to be captured well. I wrote "As a participant in the PDP working group, I generally agree with the findings in the report,...." but then that didn't count as a "Support" for each of the recommendations, except for #5 where I explicitly wrote: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… "I had another brief comment to make on a separate topic, namely reimbursement or subsidies by ICANN of IGO costs for the UDRP/URS. I believe this would be the wrong approach, given that nations do not subsidize IGO costs for their legal actions, etc." (although then I went on to suggest equal subsidies for both sides, in the event that any subsidies were to be granted) It seems that unless one followed a strict "Agree/Disagree" format for each specific recommendation, then a commenter's support or disagreement could get lost. e.g. Russ Smith: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… "Given the failure to properly manage the UDRP the court challenge should remain in place. As it is currently it could be argued that an IGO-INGO waives their right to immunity when they agree to the arbitration agreement. That should be changed so any entity who files a UDRP explicitly waves their right to any immunity. The respondent should have the matter reviewed in a legitimate legal forum rather than some kangaroo court run by NAF and INTA members." I'm not sure how that could be read as indifference to the two options in recommendation #4. The same for: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… "If you remove the court option you are removing freedom and justice from the hands of the people you are supposed to serve. You might as well let China make the rules for all mankind, it's about the same thing. Shame on you for even considering this draconian measure." Doesn't look like a supporter for binding arbitration to me! The same for: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… which doesn't seem to support binding arbitration, but prefers the courts. Or the ICA: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… "ICA believes that Option 1 of Recommendation 4 – vitiating a DRP Decision adverse to the registrant when the registrant subsequently appeals to a court of mutual jurisdiction and the complainant IGO then successfully asserts immunity – is the only option consistent with ICANN’s limited authority and remit." which was supported entirely by Jay Chapman: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… In conclusion, before we tackle agenda items #3 and #4, we should make sure we've reviewed every comment, to ensure that we've properly captured their sentiments. Sincerely, George On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear WG Members, > > > > The proposed agenda, and associated links and documents, for the upcoming WG > call this Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC is as follows; please also note > that this call has been scheduled for 90 minutes: > > > > 1. Roll call/updates to SOI > > 2. Discuss specific additional comments from GNSO members and > from other community participants with substantive suggestions > > 3. WG to note level of support for various recommendations > > 4. Agree on list of topics identified as requiring additional WG > discussion or review (see below) > > 5. Next steps/next meeting > > > > For agenda Item 2, the co-chairs recommend that the following comments be > discussed: > > · United Nations - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · Internet Commerce Association - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · International Atomic Energy Agency - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · World Bank - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · UNESCO - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · Universal Postal Union - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > · International Finance Corporation - > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… > > > > In addition, we will review the public comment review tool (updated and > attached), to make sure that we have discussed all substantive comments. We > may want to review some of the comments from individuals during this > exercise. > > > > For agenda Item 3, staff has attempted to tally the level of support for > each of the recommendations, as well as the options for recommendation 4. > Note that in the tally, we did not separately include organizations that > were supportive of other comments (e.g., from WIPO, OECD, etc.). This > information is captured in the attached Excel sheet. > > > > For agenda Item 4, and for purposes of moving forward after next Thursday, > here is a list of the new or additional facts, legal arguments and points > for consideration that staff has identified from the WG’s last two calls: > > > > 1. Lack of suitability of Article 6ter as a legal basis for standing > (various comments submitted) > > > > · What are the alternatives (GAC list, trademark law, unregistered > (i.e. what our American members call “common law”) rights, consumer > protection statutes, others)? > > · Alternatively, is there a way to scale back our recommendation on > 6ter, or to have a recommendation that says you first need 6ter to establish > procedural standing and it must be coupled with a substantive legal right of > some sort? > > > > 2. Opposition to Recommendation #4 > > > > · Three reasons provided by OECD > > · World Bank commented on reconsidering feasibility of the assignee > option > > · Did WG ignore or misinterpret part of the Swaine opinion (OECD, > World Bank)? > > > > 3. Some support emerging for Option #2 > > > > 4. Further review of arbitration as an option > > > > · See the New York Convention (OECD) > > · Is there a difference between recommending arbitration as the sole > option for appealing a UDRP decision vs filing a separate, new proceeding in > a national court (which is not an appeal from a UDRP panel)? > > > > 5. Further discussion of a separate DRP (GAC, WIPO, IPC) > > > > · See specific recommendations from IPC comment > > · Note that WG had tabled discussion of 2007 draft procedure from > ICANN staff until after completion of initial review of all comments > > > > 6. Function and scope of a Policy Guidance document > > > > · Cannot be used for cases where a recommendation amounts to a > substantive change of the UDRP (e.g. if Recommendation 4 Option #1 is > adopted) > > · Note question on Recommendation 3 by World Bank > > > > If you have any questions or comments, please let us know. > > > > Best, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > Steven Chan > > Sr. Policy Manager > > > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > steve.chan(a)icann.org > > mobile: +1.310.339.4410 > > office tel: +1.310.301.5800 > > office fax: +1.310.823.8649 > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting > the GNSO Newcomer pages. > > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

5 4

- Proposed Agenda for WG call on Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC
by Steve Chan April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

Dear WG Members, The proposed agenda, and associated links and documents, for the upcoming WG call this Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC is as follows; please also note that this call has been scheduled for 90 minutes: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss specific additional comments from GNSO members and from other community participants with substantive suggestions 3. WG to note level of support for various recommendations 4. Agree on list of topics identified as requiring additional WG discussion or review (see below) 5. Next steps/next meeting For agenda Item 2, the co-chairs recommend that the following comments be discussed: · United Nations - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · Internet Commerce Association - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · International Atomic Energy Agency - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · World Bank - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · UNESCO - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · Universal Postal Union - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… · International Finance Corporation - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/… In addition, we will review the public comment review tool (updated and attached), to make sure that we have discussed all substantive comments. We may want to review some of the comments from individuals during this exercise. For agenda Item 3, staff has attempted to tally the level of support for each of the recommendations, as well as the options for recommendation 4. Note that in the tally, we did not separately include organizations that were supportive of other comments (e.g., from WIPO, OECD, etc.). This information is captured in the attached Excel sheet. For agenda Item 4, and for purposes of moving forward after next Thursday, here is a list of the new or additional facts, legal arguments and points for consideration that staff has identified from the WG’s last two calls: 1. Lack of suitability of Article 6ter as a legal basis for standing (various comments submitted) · What are the alternatives (GAC list, trademark law, unregistered (i.e. what our American members call “common law”) rights, consumer protection statutes, others)? · Alternatively, is there a way to scale back our recommendation on 6ter, or to have a recommendation that says you first need 6ter to establish procedural standing and it must be coupled with a substantive legal right of some sort? 2. Opposition to Recommendation #4 · Three reasons provided by OECD · World Bank commented on reconsidering feasibility of the assignee option · Did WG ignore or misinterpret part of the Swaine opinion (OECD, World Bank)? 3. Some support emerging for Option #2 4. Further review of arbitration as an option · See the New York Convention (OECD) · Is there a difference between recommending arbitration as the sole option for appealing a UDRP decision vs filing a separate, new proceeding in a national court (which is not an appeal from a UDRP panel)? 5. Further discussion of a separate DRP (GAC, WIPO, IPC) · See specific recommendations from IPC comment · Note that WG had tabled discussion of 2007 draft procedure from ICANN staff until after completion of initial review of all comments 6. Function and scope of a Policy Guidance document · Cannot be used for cases where a recommendation amounts to a substantive change of the UDRP (e.g. if Recommendation 4 Option #1 is adopted) · Note question on Recommendation 3 by World Bank If you have any questions or comments, please let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Additional comment on IPC position re: arbitration, etc.
by George Kirikos April 16, 2017

April 16, 2017

Hi folks, Happy Easter. I was going through my notes, and neglected to make a comment last week during our telephone call (I had written it down several weeks ago, on a different piece of paper!). With regards to arbitration, I find it doubtful that if an IGO had a dispute with a holder of a US trademark (i.e. whether that trademark had been granted properly, or conflicted with the IGO's alleged rights), that the IPC position would be that US trademark owners should be forced to give up *their* rights to due process via their national courts, and instead be compelled to go before a binding international arbitration. Given that the USPTO hasn't created any special process for IGOs to challenge the validity of a US registered trademark, we shouldn't be doing the same in the domain name space. Presumably the US government position would be the same as that of the UNIFEM matter -- i.e. availability of court action fulfills their Article 6ter treaty obligations. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 13 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-13apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1s5qin33ve/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f d0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189> https://participate.icann.org/p1s5qin33ve/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn so-2Dcrp-2Dpdp-2D13oct16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6s Jms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsj Wv9&m=asM5JoG30Yqf49-Nims9k3McNfFtmzlAe1HmuXI6wic&s=0nZvoU1RqsjvPcNWDN_a2vVZ Dp9uXeyGO8NN2dN5h74&e=> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group -2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7x cl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m =wBBn3Ar2_mvUeGcM8rpOAyluUFEJFG5lASQ-cAccI2k&s=3BfiwO43tzwlrIbIyBY4Q-14zsFQC X518fLLR8GWR7I&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: David Maher - RySG George Kirikos - Individual Jay Chapman - Individual Paul Tattersfield - Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC (co-chair) Phil Corwin - BC (co-chair) Poncelet Ileleji - NPOC Mason Cole - RySG Paul Keating - NCUC Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb 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/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/1MzRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 13 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on Thursday, 13 April 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_1 MzRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 1MzRAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SI Y&s=O1Jx20t1U7NEY3spBINHjJup_sSVEugjL1FcX-Flldw&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=O1 Jx20t1U7NEY3spBINHjJup_sSVEugjL1FcX-Flldw&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:Hi All Paul Tattersfield:Hi All George Kirikos:Last week we had 7 participants. George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-April/000696.ht ml Paul Tattersfield:I will have to leave early today I can only stay for 40 minutes at the latest as I have another meeting Terri Agnew:thank yor for the notice Paul Poncelet Ileleji:Greetings All Terri Agnew:Welcome Jay Chapman George Kirikos:I think Mary's list in the email had them 4th, so that would make sense to keep them last. :-) Mary Wong:I just thought it would be easier to do Contracted Parties as one group, Non Contracted as another. In the former, the Registries sent their comment in before the Registrars. For the latter, the BC's came in before IPC's anyway. George Kirikos:Thanks for rearranging the pods, by the way! We have more room now. :-) George Kirikos:(just noticed that) George Kirikos:BC Comments at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00020.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00020.html&d=DwI CaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar 9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=GFHvBqKE OEbK4Z04fz9FiBbvGi8n723d207nkeEXdKE&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=GF HvBqKEOEbK4Z04fz9FiBbvGi8n723d207nkeEXdKE&e= Mary Wong:BC comment on screen now Terri Agnew:Welcome Mason Cole George Kirikos:Are we alternating comments? Phil's turn? Mary Wong:Oh dear hang on we don't have that one ready Mason Cole:Sorry I'm late, thanks Terri George Kirikos:Registries, Registrars, then IPC? George Kirikos:(those were the big 4) George Kirikos:Here's the RySG comments: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00034.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00034.html&d=DwI CaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar 9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=GZzZ60uJ -GUOedlTUAZqB0QvvoI5-sZJO2m3BU3G5lM&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=GZ zZ60uJ-GUOedlTUAZqB0QvvoI5-sZJO2m3BU3G5lM&e= George Kirikos:The last bullet point of section 4 was very good, for the 2nd last sentence. Mary Wong:We have members from some of the SG/Cs who commented on the call; please feel free to provide additional context on your SG/C comment if appropriate! George Kirikos:Yes, perhaps David Maher can elaborate, as he's with the RySG. George Kirikos:So is Mason. George Kirikos:Opens Pandora's box. Mason Cole:That was the concern, George. IGOs get free access, then there's a line forming for other parties that want free access too. Mason Cole:Don't think so, Petter, but thanks. Poncelet Ileleji:Thanks fine with me George Kirikos:Here's the RrSG comment: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c omments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00046.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_ comments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_msg00046.html&d=DwI CaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar 9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=pp_UthIG tsX5V0sk7taONC-NncYjy4K1JLVY_0LVHS0&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=pp _UthIGtsX5V0sk7taONC-NncYjy4K1JLVY_0LVHS0&e= David Maher (RySG):+1 Mason George Kirikos:That was a good point about creation of a new bureaucracy. That's consistent with leaning towards option 1, for #4, rather than creating a new mechanism that needs to be maintained, etc. paul keating:Hello all. I am sorry I am late. George Kirikos:Welcome, Paul Keating. We just went through the BC, Registrars, and Registries comments. Now on to the IPC. George Kirikos:ISP constituency didn't file anything either, nor did ALAC. George Kirikos:(but individuals did; ALAC is supposed to represent some of the individual users, etc.) George Kirikos:They oppose "Policy Guidance" at all. George Kirikos:The seem to support common law rights. We're saying that 6ter is evidence of those common law rights, essentially, and sufficient. Since TMs are already territorial, it's not a stretch to include Article 6ter too, despite rejection by any national TM office. George Kirikos:*The = They for first word above. George Kirikos:Those would have been complaints brought by national authorities, though. George Kirikos:(e.g. a magazine called "WHO" giving out bad health advice) Petter Rindforth:However, note that WIPO don't want to add new identification of name rights that may also be claimed by other groups George Kirikos:That seems contradictory. George Kirikos:+1 Phil Paul Tattersfield:I thought that George George Kirikos:Ok. paul keating 2:i hear a big echo.' George Kirikos:You're logged in twice. Is the echo just on your end? (no echo here) paul keating 2:I get 2 voites : sorry I will correct now paul keating:The in REM process does not exist in many jurisdictions. it is a US jurisprudence concept. In fact it is very difficult to bring a proper legal claim post UDRP if you are a res[pondent. The courts do not recognize there being any basis for a claim. Remember that many other jurisdictions are civil law jurisdicdtions and if it i snot authorized by statutte it is not authorized. Paul Tattersfield:Just when it gets interesting I have to leave, sorry. Thanks all bye. George Kirikos:+1 Paul. Apparently Australians have had problems with domain appeals entirely. George Kirikos:That's bizarre --- we're giving more deference. George Kirikos:We're saying Article 6ter is enough, on top of any other ways they have to prove standing (e.g. common law rights). We're giving them prong #1 automatically, essentially, knowing that a domain owner can still win with #2 or #3 of the 3-prong UDRP test. George Kirikos:They oppose the policy guidance aspect, again. George Kirikos:Which relates to their actual limitations in Article 6ter, which allow coexistence. George Kirikos:We already provided a mechanism where an IGO can avoid immunity (to counter the last sentence of that 2nd paragraph). George Kirikos:Perhaps the IPC supports arbitration, as some of their members are arbitrators. $$$$$ :-) George Kirikos:Additional outreach to the IPC? Petter Rindforth:That's correct - longstanding support for a separate DRP Jay Chapman:Agree, Phil Mary Wong:@George, IPC says 6ter does not give standing so that opposes Rec 2. George Kirikos:@Mary: rights are already territorial. Their footnote points to the US Government comments, which also provided no legal argumetns. George Kirikos:*arguments. George Kirikos:Is there a meeting next week? Or just in 2 weeks? (like the RPM working group) Mary Wong:@George, understood. As you know, staff is on record for our concern that indeed 6ter does not confer substantive rights and hence cannot confer standing under the UDRP in the absence of specific legal rights aside from national TM rights. Mary Wong:In no particular order, we have Internet Infrastructure Coalition, ICA, and FICPI (I think that's what Petter mentioned at the beginning?) Philip Corwin:Can we free up scrolling on the i2C document? Mary Wong:I can go to FICPI or others first Philip Corwin:Thx George Kirikos:Their comments on process echo those made by others, and should be noted. George Kirikos:Were there "many" broken hyperlinks? (I checked most in earlier drafts) Mary Wong:@George, I didn't think so - we checked quite a few too before publication. I guess we (staff) should check them all before publishing the Final Report. George Kirikos:I wonder if there are any automated tools from Adobe to automatically follow links to check for 404 errors, etc. Petter Rindforth:FICPI are members of IPC Mary Wong:They are quite active in the international IP arena. George Kirikos:They agree that Article 6ter 1(c) is consisnted with the UDRP too. (so our policy guidance is appropriate). George Kirikos:That's a good point that WIPO issues "Model Complaints and Filing Guidelines" (incuding their WIPO Overview). Further support for policy guidance (consistent with policy, not changing the policy). George Kirikos:+1 "More Practical" Petter Rindforth:Several FICPI members are also panellists basically in Eurpoe and Asia paul keating:Recommendation #4 (a) and (b) DOES require a modification of the UDRP. George Kirikos:Registrants should be heard from, too (option #1), not just IGOs. George Kirikos:Here's FICPI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ficpi.org_organisati on_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ficpi.org_organisat ion_&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY& s=vrwMaThwbKXdT9rWKofohX6hsgD7eI1LFksl7ydYUHQ&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=swvDAP5wLPpvYddEDvbZMBJXjaJfylvwv6RPm9c7SIY&s=vr wMaThwbKXdT9rWKofohX6hsgD7eI1LFksl7ydYUHQ&e= Mary Wong:@Paul, yes I believe so. paul keating:no Mary Wong:Yes I know FICPI George Kirikos:I linked to them -- they seem to be bigger than the IPC. paul keating:Petter sounds like a very well developed and compentent group. paul keating:Mary pls say again the date and time of the call? George Kirikos:Or we could skip a week, to stay aligned with the RPM PDP. Mary Wong:Next Thursday same time same duration (1600 UTC, 90 minutes) paul keating:thank yoiu Terri Agnew:@Phil, apology noted for next weeks call George Kirikos:Same time as now. Poncelet Ileleji:Much appreciated for all the work done of the couple of months, I have followed keenly via the mailing list Poncelet Ileleji:over the ssorry for typo George Kirikos:We should list the comments we're going to review, e.g. in order, with links, in the agenda, so we can read them in advance. Poncelet Ileleji:I noticed NCSG did not have a comment Mary Wong:@Poncelet, no they did not file Poncelet Ileleji:OKay noted @Mary paul keating:thank you all. Good evening. George Kirikos:Bye folks! Poncelet Ileleji:Thanks all Bye]

1 0

An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
by George Kirikos April 12, 2017

April 12, 2017

Hi folks, There was an interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0200 The SEC is an agency of the US government. While they are not an IGO (and we do have UDRP cases already with IGOs), and thus the "immunity" issue isn't engaged, it's useful as another demonstration that even government agencies are able to successfully use the UDRP. "Public interest" didn't "require" that a special process be created just for them, as the IGOs have repeatedly demanded. Nor did they seek a subsidy in fees (despite the US government's $20 trillion debt). They were able to successfully navigate the existing alternative dispute resolution procedures, although they could have also chosen to use the courts. They even appeared to have done so with internal representation, without spending on outside lawyers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 2

Updated Public Comment Summary Table, and reminder of agenda for the meeting this week
by Mary Wong April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached a slightly updated Public Comment Review Tool document – the only update/addition made was to add some notes at the beginning as to the number of comments submitted, and the number of as well as which IGOs signed up to the OECD and WIPO comments, among other such notes. On the call last week, it was also noted that the following will be discussed on the call this Thursday, which will also be a 90-minute call commencing at 1600 UTC: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue review of public comments received – specific focus on comments received from GNSO Stakeholder Groups & Constituencies (Registries, Registrars, BC, IPC) 3. [if time permits] Continue review of other public comments and the Review Tool 4. Next steps/next meeting As we are in the midst of a significant discussion that will eventually determine whether and how our initial recommendations may be amended as part of our Final Report, it will be greatly appreciated if all members can make an effort to join the call and/or provide thoughts and comments to this mailing list. Please let the Secretariat (gnso-secs(a)icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org)> know if you are unable to join the call. We will upload the latest Public Comment Review Tool and specific comments to the Working Group wiki soon. We have already done so for the meeting from last week. Thank you! Cheers Mary

1 0