June 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Attempt at Achieving Full Consensus -- Option #4
by George Kirikos July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Hi folks, After today's call, I was doing some brainstorming, and wish to present a skeleton proposal for a new Option #4, as a possible viable alternative to Options #1, #2 and #3. First, my strong inclination remains with Option #1, with Option #3 (the limited waiver adjustment to the UDRP language, as opposed to a full waiver as is currently the case, as mentioned by Paul Keating) being my second choice. However, here's my idea for Option #4: (a) For all domains with a creation date prior to the adoption of our final report (say January 1, 2018, for the sake of argument), we go with Option #1 (i.e. this reflects the grandfathering we've discussed previously for existing domain names already created, thereby not taking away the legal rights of registrants (or successors in interest, i.e. transfers) of currently registered domain names. (b) For all domains with a creation date past January 1, 2018, we go with Option #2 (not the current document that was sent to the mailing list today, but a much more polished and thoroughly reviewed version, with stronger due process protections for registrants, including a 2nd level of appeals if necessary and also with the full "open court principle" in effect for all documents/evidence, for all those cases (not just decisions, but also all filings, cross-examinations, etc. in the case) with copies to be maintained on a public website by ICANN (as they do now for their "Litigation" section of their website. (c) All UDRP/URS providers must flag *all* of their disputes involving IGOs as complainants, sending the information to ICANN which will maintain a public record of them (like they used to do for UDRPs, but stopped doing). Not only does ICANN have to track any arbitrations invoked in point (b) above, but ICANN must also track any/all court disputes invoked and subject to point (a) (i.e. the grandfathered domain names), and obtain (at ICANN's expense) all the relevant public court documents/filings/evidence. (d) And here's the key insight, that follows from (a), (b) and (c) -- at the earliest date of (i) five years or (ii) after 10 (or some other number) disputes involving IGOs via Option #2 (i.e. counting just non-grandfathered domains, where the arbitration system might offer less due process than the courts), ICANN shall convene a "review" working group to analyze all of the cases involving IGOs (both grandfathered and non-grandfathered), for the limited purpose of reviewing whether or not the arbitration system has adequately served those domain name registrants (i.e. offered the equivalent level of justice as the court system). Should that review find that the level of due process was equivalent to the courts (i.e. no outrageous decisions/outcomes/process failures, etc. that offends the sensibilities of community, etc.), then Option #2 could continue (for newly created domains only; grandfathered domains would always stay grandfather via Option #1). In the event that arbitration turns out to be an abysmal failure, i.e. subject to forum shopping issues, etc., then newly created domains would revert back to Option #1 (vitiation), just like the grandfathered domain names. That working group shall also seek the input of all parties to the disputes, to get their input on the success of the procedure. So, in other words, we "try out" Option #2, just for newly created domains, while preserving full legal rights under Option #1 for grandfathered domains. Then we impose the obligation upon ICANN, the UDRP/URS providers, and the arbitration providers (via the mandated open court principle) to provide a future "review working group" the ability to go back and double check that there were no negative consequences in the decision to "try out" Option #2 as an experiment. (I was going to use the term "unforeseen consequences", but I think we *can* foresee some of those potential consequences already!) Lastly, we build in a clause that should ICANN fail to complete such a review within 7 years total (measured from the adoption of our final report, i.e. January 1, 2018 for the sake of argument plus 7 years would be January 1, 2025), then Option #2 is eliminated, and we go back to Option #1. Call this a "self-termination" clause, to ensure that a future review itself isn't gamed. i.e. the default is that we go back to Option #1 for everyone, except if a full review determines we can continue with Option #2 for newly created domains. The entire justification of this PDP was due to the new gTLD process. So, this recommendation would say "fine, experiment on newly created domains, both new gTLDs and legacy TLDs to boot; review and assess, and either continue it if no negaitve consequences, or kill it and revert to Option #1 if there are problems". This solves a lot of the issues where ICANN makes bad policies, and then never reviews them (i.e. UDRP being reviewed after 20 years!). Here, we're *building in* the mandatory review as part of our consensus decision-making, if folks agree to go this route. Furthermore, we're empowering that future review working group, *and* ensuring they have all the data that's needed to do a proper review. As we've seen from other working groups, most ICANN policies never contemplated being reviewed, and thus never mandated ongoing data collection. Here, we'd be requiring that data collection from the start. This proposal is still in skeleton form, but I'm posting it now, while the ICANN meeting is ongoing in Joburg, in the hopes we can get some feedback potentially from anyone there, as it might help break an impasse (although, I still believe Option #1 is the best, by a great margin, for reasons previously discussed in depth). Of course, anyone in this PDP with thoughts can post to the mailing list as well, or we can also discuss during a future regular PDP call. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

4 11

Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
by George Kirikos July 8, 2017

July 8, 2017

FYI, ICANN published this last night: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en and conceivably it might impact our work to some degree. More comments later, once I've had time to analyze it fully. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 3

Advice on IGOs from the GAC's Johannesburg Communique
by Mary Wong July 3, 2017

July 3, 2017

Dear Working Group members, You may be interested to know that the GAC Communique from this meeting in Johannesburg (ICANN59) has been released: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN59%20Comm… “In respect of IGOs, the GAC advice to the Board is: The GAC reiterates its Advice that IGO access to curative dispute resolution mechanism should: I. be modeled on, but separate from, the existing Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) II. provide standing based on IGOs’ status as public intergovernmental institutions, and III. respect IGOs’ jurisdictional status by facilitating appeals exclusively through arbitration. The GAC expresses concern that a GNSO working group has indicated that it may deliver recommendations which substantially differ from GAC Advice, and calls on the ICANN Board to ensure that such recommendations adequately reflect input and expertise provided by IGOs. RATIONALE This Advice aligns with the view of governments that IGOs perform important public functions for citizens worldwide, and that protecting their identities in the DNS serves to minimize the potential for consumer harm.” Thanks and cheers Mary

4 6

FW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection
by Phil Corwin June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Working Group members: FYI, below is a message sent by Brian Beckham of WIPO to the informal discussion group on IGO issues chaired by Bruce Tonkin. In regard to the "rapid relief mechanism" referenced in the email, I would agree that it falls outside the scope of our work. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Beckham, Brian Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 5:33 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection Thanks for this update Bruce. We are keen to see at the Tuesday session in Johannesburg the extent to which the IGO curative WG has incorporated (i) longstanding GAC Advice, (ii) the GAC's comments to the IGO curative WG Initial Report, and (iii) agreement reached in Copenhagen on the public policy rationale for the protection sought by IGOs. On a slightly different note, I would again like to recall here ICANN's agreement in an October 4, 2016 letter from Dr. Crocker to the GNSO Council Chair and Vice-Chairs that "ICANN will facilitate the creation of a mechanism through which an Eligible IGO may obtain a rapid temporary suspension of a domain name in situations where it would not be reasonable for it to use the agreed Dispute Resolution Mechanism [i.e., where] there is an obvious risk of imminent harm from the claimed abuse of such domain name, (e.g. such as fraudulently soliciting donations in the wake of a humanitarian disaster)." Again, just to briefly recall, the GAC's comments to the IGO curative WG Initial Report framed this not as a mere repackaging of the existing URS (or UDRP), but as "an emergency relief (e.g., 24-48 hours) domain name suspension mechanism to combat risk of imminent harm" and noted that this previously-agreed "Rapid relief mechanism" falls outside the scope of the IGO curative WG. Best regards, and safe travels to everyone. Brian From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:03 AM To: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection Hello All, Please note that I am now using a different email address. I have had a few questions about whether there will be any further facilitated discussion on IGO protections in Johannesburg. (1) Regarding the watch list suggestion from the facilitated discussion in Copenhagen. I am aware that ICANN staff have done some further analysis of the options to provide such a service and will brief the Board. I expect the Board will consider the information, and hopefully we will hear whether they plan to proceed with some form of service. (2) The GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process Working Group<https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…> will be holding a 90 min public session at the Johannesburg meeting at 10:30am on Tuesday 27 June 2017. Details are available at: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect… I plan to attend this session to learn more about how the policy work has evolved since the public comment process on their initial report. I recommend all members of this discussion list that will be in Johannesburg come along as well. I don't believe there is value in having a further facilitated dialogue until we all know how the work of the working group has progressed since Copenhagen. I will be happy to chat to anyone after that session, and open to any suggestions on how I can help in any way. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 3

Slides and documents for the Curative Rights PDP Working Group open session today
by Mary Wong June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Hello all – it appears that an email from yesterday did not get sent successfully, so I’m resending as a reply to an earlier email. Please note that staff has uploaded a set of slides as well as a brief discussion document from our co-chairs to both the Working Group wiki space (https://community.icann.org/x/owffAw) and the ICANN59 meeting page for our session (http://sched.co/B49J) The discussion document is a one-page set of points on arbitration elements that our co-chairs prepared, to facilitate the ongoing discussion on this topic. They will walk the attendees through it during the open Working Group meeting on Tuesday at 10.30 Johannesburg time. Thanks and cheers Mary On 6/26/17, 10:07, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: Hello everyone, The session will focus on providing an update on where the Working Group is, in terms of reviewing (and in some cases, possibly amending) its preliminary recommendations. There should also be time to continue the ongoing discussions Options 1 & 2 for Recommendation #4, as well as any other business (AOB). Based on our consultations with Petter and Phil, staff has put together a numbered agenda that has been posted on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/owffAw. We are also preparing a few slides that will have the timeline and include the text of the original preliminary recommendations as well as notes on which are not being changed, and which are or might be - the slides will be few as the intention is that the session be devoted more to discussion rather than presentations. Cheers Mary On 6/26/17, 06:40, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Julie Bisland" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of julie.bisland(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Here is the link for the audio bridge phone numbers: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet… This information can also be found on the GNSO Remote Participation Details Open and Public Meetings Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_ydej5ugu&d… Best to all, Julie -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:22 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Tuesday (Joburg time) are at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… namely: Tuesday, June 27, 10:30 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (4:30 am - 6 am NYC time, 1:30 am - 3 am Los Angeles time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-committeeroom4 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has an agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&… _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

2 1

Proposed Tuesday session agenda (Re: ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP)
by Mary Wong June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Hello everyone, The session will focus on providing an update on where the Working Group is, in terms of reviewing (and in some cases, possibly amending) its preliminary recommendations. There should also be time to continue the ongoing discussions Options 1 & 2 for Recommendation #4, as well as any other business (AOB). Based on our consultations with Petter and Phil, staff has put together a numbered agenda that has been posted on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/owffAw. We are also preparing a few slides that will have the timeline and include the text of the original preliminary recommendations as well as notes on which are not being changed, and which are or might be - the slides will be few as the intention is that the session be devoted more to discussion rather than presentations. Cheers Mary On 6/26/17, 06:40, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Julie Bisland" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of julie.bisland(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Here is the link for the audio bridge phone numbers: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet… This information can also be found on the GNSO Remote Participation Details Open and Public Meetings Wiki Page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_ydej5ugu&d… Best to all, Julie -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:22 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Tuesday (Joburg time) are at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… namely: Tuesday, June 27, 10:30 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (4:30 am - 6 am NYC time, 1:30 am - 3 am Los Angeles time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-committeeroom4 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has an agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&… _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP
by Julie Bisland June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Dear All, Here is the link for the audio bridge phone numbers: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/dial-in-23may17-en.pdf This information can also be found on the GNSO Remote Participation Details Open and Public Meetings Wiki Page: https://tinyurl.com/ydej5ugu Best to all, Julie -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:22 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Tuesday (Joburg time) are at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… namely: Tuesday, June 27, 10:30 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (4:30 am - 6 am NYC time, 1:30 am - 3 am Los Angeles time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-committeeroom4 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has an agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&… _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

ICANN59 remote participation for IGO PDP
by George Kirikos June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Hi folks, The details of the upcoming call on Tuesday (Joburg time) are at: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect… namely: Tuesday, June 27, 10:30 am - 12:00 noon Joburg time (4:30 am - 6 am NYC time, 1:30 am - 3 am Los Angeles time) Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-committeeroom4 I couldn't find any dial-in telephone number to participate, though? Perhaps Mary or Terri or one of the other ICANN staff can confirm whether there is a dial-in available like our normal calls? Also, has an agenda or any documents (e.g. Powerpoint, although PDF is best) been circulated for this call? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

ICANN and Contracts of Adhesion: Supreme Court of Canada ruling that might impact our work
by George Kirikos June 23, 2017

June 23, 2017

Hi folks, There was an interesting ruling today from the Supreme Court of Canada, that might impact our work (and ICANN policymaking in general). See the article at: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/supreme-court-rules-facebook-cant-contra… The text of the decision is at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16700/index.do In particular, it speaks to whether non-negotiated "take-it-or-leave it" online contracts are enforceable. "The automatic nature of the commitments made with online contracts intensifies the scrutiny for clauses that have the effect of impairing a consumer’s access to potential remedies." "The burdens of forum selection clauses on consumers and their ability to access the courtsystem range from added costs, logistical impediments and delays, to deterrent psychological effects. When online consumer contracts of adhesion contain terms that *****unduly impede the ability of consumers to vindicate their rights in domestic courts******, particularly their quasi-constitutional or constitutional rights, public policy concerns outweigh those favouring enforceability of a forum selection clause." "It would be contrary to public policy to enforce a forum selection clause in a consumer contract that has the effect of depriving a party of access to a statutorily mandated court." (emphasis added) I would argue that compelling binding arbitration for disputes initiated by IGOs takes away rights of registrants, and is a contract of adhesion via this decision that cannot be enforced in Canada. This supports "Option 1" analysis of maintaining the status quo as much as possible, to not let ICANN policymaking tamper local laws. As Professor Geist concluded: "With the majority ruling against the enforceability of the forum selection clause, the court has demonstrated their *****discomfort with non-negotiated online terms that place consumers at a significant disadvantage and may result in a loss of rights.***** While forum selection clauses are an obvious manifestation of that, the *****reasoning might also be applied to other online contractual terms that seek to override important laws and protections.******* These could include contractual terms that seek to override copyright user rights or local consumer safeguards. The decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on online contracting in Canada, forcing many online companies to reconsider whether their agreements are fully enforceable and *****emboldening consumers to stand up for their rights.*****" (emphasis added) Obviously this would impact other ICANN-mandated policies too that are the result of unequal bargaining power between registrants and ICANN/registries/registrars. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions - every morning 08:00 - 08:30 local time ICANN59
by Nathalie Peregrine June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

Dear all, As a reminder, GNSO Policy and Outreach sessions will be held at the beginning of each meeting day. During these sessions, the GNSO Policy Support Team will provide a briefing that aims to assist attendees in their preparation for the GNSO topics that are on the agenda for that specific day. This session is intended to be informative and interactive. Please join us with any questions you may have. They will be held from 08:00 – 08:30 local time every day in Committee 4, except for Tuesday 27 June, when that particular session will be held in Ballroom 2. Remote participation is available. Please remember to add these sessions to your schedules (go to https://schedule.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…>, create a profile and add the sessions you’re interested in) in order to receive all the updates and/or changes. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 15 June 2017
by Terri Agnew June 15, 2017

June 15, 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, 15 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-15jun17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p4vgo7ydly3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57 b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f> https://participate.icann.org/p4vgo7ydly3/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield David Maher Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Paul Keating Apologies: Mason Cole ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 15 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 15 June 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_S EfwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ SEfwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=94kudPvxsE4Kv6BchTlNVXy_Uhf4K5cGOJwfk32lb- A&s=tWz0YM622-NQssQii9SogtfAHC5py1wAc2SrUPdpivk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=94kudPvxsE4Kv6BchTlNVXy_Uhf4K5cGOJwfk32lb-A&s=tW z0YM622-NQssQii9SogtfAHC5py1wAc2SrUPdpivk&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:Hi there! Paul Tattersfield:Hi Philip Corwin:Hello all Terri Agnew:Welcome Paul Keating Paul Keating:Hello all. George Kirikos:Can we get the documents in PDF format, by the way? (as I noted on the list) The spreadsheet in particular is causing me problems. Berry Cobb:@George - I will do the XLS in PDF after the call. It will take me time to size each sheet so that it will print in PDF in a useful way. Some tabs have over 3000+ rows. Apologies for not thinking of it prior to the call. Paul Tattersfield:I think the spreadsheet will require a lot of reformating to get in a pdf format because of the quantity of data Mary Wong:The impact analysis document has also been posted to the WG wiki space as a PDF: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S EfwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ SEfwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=94kudPvxsE4Kv6BchTlNVXy_Uhf4K5cGOJwfk32lb- A&s=tWz0YM622-NQssQii9SogtfAHC5py1wAc2SrUPdpivk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=94kudPvxsE4Kv6BchTlNVXy_Uhf4K5cGOJwfk32lb-A&s=tW z0YM622-NQssQii9SogtfAHC5py1wAc2SrUPdpivk&e= Mary Wong:@Paul T, yes Mary Wong:@Steve, thank you - nothing from me George Kirikos:Or, save the spreadsheet in Open Office or Google Docs formats, instead, if Excel will export to those. George Kirikos:Since, Excel format is causing various problems. Berry Cobb:@George, I will try that as well. George Kirikos:(e.g. Intro Tab is completely blank for me in one piece of software, normal in other) Paul Tattersfield:the raw data is very useful. If you have the correct software it is far easier to analyse it in a spreadsheet format rather than a pdf George Kirikos:2nd setennce is now answered by "yes", since the lawsuit is over at that point, so they can transfer. Berry Cobb:I'd just add to this document (not including George's comments) is really just meant as a starter draft to spur deliberations on the advantages/disadvantages. The content statements are very much in raw form, and it is up to the WG to decide whether they are useful or should be amended. George Kirikos:Mute? Paul Keating:To Clarify: the court's order must be to dismiss as a result of teh NGO's motion or defense asserting immunity. George Kirikos:3 years, yes. Mary Wong:@Paul, to the extent that the vitiation is contingent on a court's substantive ruling (rather than just a ruling that an IGO has immunity), that will probably need to be clarified and added to the Final Report. Paul Keating:@PHIL, Option 1 changes the UDRP. We must insert the vitiation language.. Otherwise, the Respondent would lose the domain based upon the post-UDRP dismissal based on immunity. Paul Keating:@Mary, I agree completely. The vitiation must be limited to a dismissal based upon immunity. George Kirikos:@Paul: it doesn't change the UDRP. It negates the UDRP --- it's an instruction to the registrars, that they are to ignore the UDRP ruling. Mary Wong:@George, that is why the staff is raising the concern we did - how is that dealt with legally? George Kirikos:It's like saying a registrar is free to ignore a court action, if it's not brought in a competent forum. George Kirikos:e.g. someone sues me in Iran, which has no jurisdiction over a matter. Tucows is free to ignore anything coming from an Iranian court. Paul Keating:Easy. Domain is transferred based on the UDRP. Paul Keating:THis is the same that would occur if the case were dismissed for any reason. Philip Corwin:I greatly respect Paul's opinion on UDRP matters, and his response is consistent with that of other UDRP panelists and litigating attorneys that I have discussed this with. George Kirikos:IGOs are trying to have it both ways, then, that they're concerned about "Mutual Jurisdiction" being a waiver, and then arguing that it's not a waiver. Option 1 helps clarify that. George Kirikos:Option 1 is consistent with the 'grand bargain' that created the UDRP, that it was not intended to create any new rights that were superior to those from the courts. Mary Wong:@Paul, agree - that's why we are raising the issue. As things stand, the fate of the panel decision lies with the court - there is no rule about vitiation. Philip Corwin:Concur that Option 1 would require some change in the UDRP -- as would Option 2. They are equivalent in that respect. Paul Keating:@Peter - would the UDRP be handled by WIPO :-) Philip Corwin:Does it matter which accredited UDRP provider handles the UDRP if the judicial appeal (or arbitration per Option 2) is a completely de novo procedure per the national law it was brought under? George Kirikos:Who is talking? Terri Agnew:Paul, we can hear you Philip Corwin:Whether WIPO should be permitted to handle a post-UDRP scenario under Option 2 is something we should discuss in another meeting when we discuss potential elements of an Option2 procedure. Terri Agnew:Paul Keating is speaking Paul Tattersfield:yes Philip Corwin:Prior post shoud have read "post-UDRP arbitration scenario" George Kirikos:Also, which remedies, etc (in law, transfer of the domain need not be the required remedy). George Kirikos:Trying to reinvent/copy the law --- that reinforces that the court of law is the ideal forum. George Kirikos:Since, any differences would be biased in favour of IGOs. i.e. basic game theory is that IGOs would only assert that immunity if they believe that it's a benefit to them. George Kirikos:Basic forum shopping. Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks for the topic suggestions - another we'd add is, what are the arbitration rules that would apply George Kirikos:"We're going to follow Canadian law, but with less qualified decision-makers" === bad Jay Chapman:A lot of work, Paul K, but I don't disagree George Kirikos:Option 3 = limit the scope of the immunity waiver. George Kirikos:Paul had proposed that years ago, but it hadn't been seriously considered by the group. Philip Corwin:@Paul--detailed discussion of key elements of a post-immunity arbitration can certainly consider waiver of monetray damages and other key issues Paul Keating:correct George Kirikos:What Paul was saying, though, was to KEEP IT IN THE COURTS, but limit what the court can consider (i.e. only consider the fate of the domain). George Kirikos:i.e. the "cause of action" that can be brought by a loser in a UDRP is only about the fate of the domain name, not $100,000 ACPA damages, or employment issues with an IGO, or fraud by the IGO, or other causes of action. George Kirikos:But, the IGO explicilty must waive immunity and agrees to the court's jurisdiction, but only to the extent that it concerns the fate of the domain. Paul Tattersfield:I think we need to remember the IGO's are looking to seize other people's property not defend their own property, limiting their liability runs the risk of frivolous UDRPs Jay Chapman:Hard to imagine any court granting a judgment against an IGO other than in a case of an abusive filing Paul Keating:@Paul - That is indeed a risk. You would end up with a RDNH finding, a post UDRP court action and a Post-UDRP judgment confirming posession to the Respondent. The only other "remedy" would be the sh aming factor. That is enough for me given teh limited number of UDRPs we are discussing here. Philip Corwin:So Option 3 would be to eliminate the possibility of arbitration but requite the domain registrant to waive any possibility of monetary damages? Does ICANN have authority to limit the scope of national laws? Paul Keating:@Phil We need to modify the UDRP and the RA. That is, however, the case with any of the options we are considering. George Kirikos:@Phil: it'd be saying that the scope of the UDRP waiver is only with respect to the domain name aspect. If someone wanted to raise the "damages" issue, the IGO could properly assert immunity, i.e. they would argue they *didn't* waive that issue for immunity. Jay Chapman:Paul, do you have an outlined version of "Option 3" you could share via the email list? George Kirikos:Likelihood = 3, Impact = 1 Paul Keating:@George, I think part of the bargain would be to eliminate the potential for a damage claim regardless of the NGO's poisition relative to immunity. Otherwise they will insist on the arbitration process. George Kirikos:(negligible damage) George Kirikos:They already successfully used licensee. Paul Keating:I have one somehwere. I had sent this out as an option earlier. I will try to dig up the email. Jay Chapman:Thx Paul Tattersfield:By agreeing to mutual jurisdiction they waive immunity George Kirikos:Option 1 says "court is supreme" --- entirely consistent with the premise that the UDRP was created not to supercede laws. Mary Wong:@Paul T, that is a fundamental challenge regarding Rec 4 as it stands (irrespective of whether Option 1 or 2, or some other option, is preferred) George Kirikos:Courts should be deciding which ones are IGOs. George Kirikos:An IGO that has no connection to Canada (no treaty rights, etc), e.g. some of these Asian or European or Caribbean or African IGOs would have no treaty rights in Canada or the USA. George Kirikos:If Canada/USA is not a member of the "Pacific Islands Forum", for example, their IGO has no special rights, even if they're on the GAC list. George Kirikos:Same for OPEC. Mary Wong:@George, if the Canadian govt signed on to a treaty or other instrument that grants national rights to an IGO, then that IGO would have rights within Canadian jurisdiction. Berry Cobb:To Phil's comment: Recall the NGPC's small group proposal with their version of an RPM did limit the scope to only the 192 orgs as pwer the 2013 GAC advice Paul Tattersfield:@Mary I'm also troubled with the concept of IGO's being entitled to immunity when they are looking to seize the assets of others for what ever reason. George Kirikos:@Mary: yes, if Canada was a member of OPEC, then their immunity might exist in Canada. Philip Corwin:@Berry--thanks for noting that -- although again I'm not sure it's the task of this WG to decide which IGOs are "real" George Kirikos:(OPEC might be a bad example, since the government might recognize them) Mary Wong:@Paul T, thing is, whether jurisdictional immunity exists in any one case is not dependent on any motive for going to court or pleading it. Berry Cobb:@Phil - that is perhaps correct. I'm just viewing it as a possible considerdation as it can likely reconcile to the GAC advice and in terms of an IGO's concern on MJ. George Kirikos:+1 Paul. Option 1 is more consistent with the UDRP. Says that the procedure is that the dispute should be decided by courts, not arbitrators. Mary Wong:@Paul K, yes Philip Corwin:Paul, your description is correct Mary Wong:And hence the point staff just brought up, about whether agreeing to MJ in the first place = waiver of immunity (such that it cannot be successfully pleaded after the fact) George Kirikos:@Mary: yes, the intent of the UDRP was that it was a mandatory waiver of jurisdiction. Option 1 simply clears up any loopholes, that IGOs raise doubts about. Mary Wong:@George, but if that is the case, then how can an IGO ever successfully plead immunity where it is deemed to have ALREADY waived it? Paul Tattersfield:@Mary I agree, I'm just concerned the working group is considering granting rights that should not be granted. I think I need to make the time to consider the principle(s) behind immunity again. George Kirikos:When there was a dispute in the PUPA.com case, I went to court immediately, before the UDRP case was decided. Paul Keating:@George, Excellent point. I had not thought of a pre-UDRP decision action by the respondent. That will be more difficult. George Kirikos:(and the UDRP panel decided it would defer to the courts) George Kirikos:(and terminated the UDRP) George Kirikos:Tucows and others have done the same. George Kirikos:Option 1 has fewer of these loopholes. George Kirikos:After the filing, though, but before the UDRP was decided (i.e. after the UDRP was filed, the IGO waives its immunity). George Kirikos:Before the UDRP is filed, there's not the explicit waver. Paul Tattersfield:@George before the UDRP is an offensive action rather than a defensive action that is what immunity is for to prevent offensive actions Mary Wong:@Phil, while we haven't looked at the matter in great detail, staff is inclined to agree with you in respect of ICANN's limited authority on pre-UDRP strategies and actions. George Kirikos:ICANN59 planning? Philip Corwin:Well, George's scenario was a post-UDRP filing but pre-UDRP decision defensive litigation one, just to be clear. IMHO we have zero authroity to opine on what a court does if litigation is filed before a UDRP is filed. Paul Tattersfield:The data was very good thank you Berry Cobb:@Petter - NP. I will work on other formats to present it to the WG. George Kirikos:Did the spreadsheet look at both "www.example.com <http://www.example.com> " and "example.com" URLs? I think some sites that don't resolve without the 'www' might resolve with the 'www' (common webmaster mistake). Paul Tattersfield:We should also look at discusing the raw data at ICANN59 because on first pass at least it shows very little if not zero need for any special IGO UDRP exceptions George Kirikos:The "raw acronym data" seems to imply that just the "apex name" was looked at (column F), not the "www" subdomain. Mary Wong:@Paul T, @Phil - thank you, yes - sorry I forgot to mention the data sampling which does seem useful to include in the ICANN59 discussion. George Kirikos:True, Paul. Very few cases of impersonation. George Kirikos:And it's unclear why law enforcement hasn't been involved for those cases, or registrar/registry abuse, webhosting providers, etc. George Kirikos:(I meant Column "E" earlier, not column F) Paul Tattersfield:There were a few redirects to offical sites but that doesn't really lead to any harm Mary Wong:We will work with Petter and Phil on the co-chairs' strawman for Option 2. Philip Corwin:Safe travel to all heading to Joburg George Kirikos:Data appears faulty. e.g. it says "acp.info" doesn't resolve. But, it resolves for me. Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye Jay Chapman:thanks, all Paul Keating:goo night

1 0

FOR DISCUSSION: Updated documents on Options 1 & 2/Rec 4
by Mary Wong June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached: (1) an updated Pros/Cons document regarding Options 1 & 2 for Preliminary Recommendation #4; and (2) an illustrative, limited sampling of data of domain registrations relating to the IGOs currently on the GAC’s 2013 list. As noted in the document, none of its contents nor the data sampling is meant to indicate a staff view on the topic under discussion; rather, we are providing these in the hope that they will facilitate the Working Group’s discussion. Please note also that under the GNSO’s rules of procedure, Working Groups are encouraged to perform an impact analysis as part of preparation of final recommendations – we therefore hope that these drafts are helpful in that regard as well. We will also post these to the Working Group wiki space shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary

4 4

REMINDER: Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Article on Forced Arbitration and Bias
by George Kirikos June 10, 2017

June 10, 2017

Hi folks, There was a timely article re: forced arbitration today that documents the biases inherent in such systems: https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/06/09/0033255/att-uses-forced-arbitr… "Forced arbitration provisions in telecommunications contracts erode Americans' ability to seek justice in the courts by forcing them into a privatized system that is inherently biased in favor of providers and which offers virtually no way to challenge a biased outcome," This article speaks to the inherent flaws in the position of those advocating Option 2 in our discussions. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 2

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 08 June 2017
by Terri Agnew June 8, 2017

June 8, 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, 08 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-08jun17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5mr9ivogrq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=980ecc2001b7c56d b17d5aadc92897136cc52b6e4e095d668c49bb166b20dd87> https://participate.icann.org/p5mr9ivogrq/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Mason Cole Paul Tattersfield David Maher Phil Corwin Osvaldo Novoa Nat Cohen Apologies: Jay Chapman ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/njbwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/njbwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 08 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 08 June 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_n jbwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ njbwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43se8Fqgr U&s=Qa7PjOFu7h7HJz0e1PcJumAwWdsy5SYtYtSqh_YmMmc&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43se8FqgrU&s=Qa 7PjOFu7h7HJz0e1PcJumAwWdsy5SYtYtSqh_YmMmc&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Hi Paul. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all. George Kirikos:Hi Osvaldo. George Kirikos:I think the agenda is to go over the pros/cons doc that went out today. George Kirikos:?? George Kirikos:i.e. alternative procedure Petter Rindforth:...and finally I reached by phone as well :-) George Kirikos:We've already identified cases in the Swaine report on UDRP cases brought by IGOs. George Kirikos:(Swaine repeated the cases we'd identified on the mailing list, etc.) George Kirikos:2 weeks ago (no call last week). Berry Cobb:@Phil - yes. It is now part of GNSO Op Procedures as part of DMPM recommendations. Impact analysis on proposed recommendations. Berry Cobb:Data & Metrics for Policy Making. A WG concluded in 2013. About data driven analysis in policy development. Mason Cole:Feedback on the line George Kirikos:Someone's slurping a drink? Mary Wong:sorry I'm having connectivity problems Paul Tattersfield:Steve what are you classing as "their domains"? George Kirikos:I understand the idea of a risk assessment. Just concerned about ICANN staff doing self-directed data collection/analysis, that hadn't gone through the working group members first. Mary Wong:the staff research is supposed to assist with the risk analysis the WG agreed to last week and that steve just clarified Berry Cobb:I'll defer to next week, please. I'm not dialed in. George Kirikos:Staff are here to support the working group, and shouldn't be doing independent/self-directed research, in my view. Paul Tattersfield:Is there a list of the 192? IGOs that the GAC wanted to "protect"? Mary Wong:paul, yes - it's the GAC list from 2013 that is out predecessor wg looked at and used too Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary, has there been any updates to it? Mary Wong:paul, no Mary Wong:note that this is a staff draft meant to facilitate WG discussion and not intended as conclusory or any sort of staff view Paul Tattersfield:I think it's also worth noting he articles of the IGO's require them to settle disputes in an appropriate forum this doesn't necessarily ean only the forum that the IGO chooses. Paul Tattersfield:ean=mean George Kirikos:Same for country-code TLDs. Petter Rindforth:Again, a separate DRP seems to be an easy way in the first thought, but once anyone study all the details it seems more difficult to create and to work in a practical and acceptable way George Kirikos:+1 Petter. George Kirikos:US Govt was also concerned about "fake" IGOs. George Kirikos:Small group proposal was sloppy, confusing and/or in a few places, etc., i.e. not just "forum shopping", but legal test shopping. Paul Tattersfield:That's another list I think it would be helpful to see George George Kirikos:Indeed, Paul. Mason Cole:need to head to another call. see some of you in jo'burg. thanks Petter and Phil. Petter Rindforth:See you there! Mary Wong:on the down how negative in point 3, I think we could have phrased it better as a drp that is "based on something other than trademark rights" (instead of "not on trademark rights"). sorry for the confusion. George Kirikos:Option 2 is not best for the domain owner! Mary Wong: ** double (not down how) George Kirikos:Is anyone supporting a separate DRP? Perhaps a straw poll? George Kirikos:X to oppose? Petter Rindforth:George, I see your hands up ;-) Mary Wong:should we also take this question to the mailing list? Petter Rindforth:Yes George Kirikos:"Full consensus" George Kirikos::-) George Kirikos:Dennis = staff George Kirikos:So, that's everyone. George Kirikos:Subject to anyone on the mailing list objecting, though, as Mary suggested. George Kirikos:Add that as an Action Item, perhaps. George Kirikos:Ask if anyone objects to closing the "Separate DRP" topic. Mary Wong:will there be a meeting on 22 June? Terri Agnew:ICANN59 final schedule: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg2017 .sched.com_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann59johannesburg201 7.sched.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43s e8FqgrU&s=_qz_J664p21UjYhPcO1clI7UZE6BC99x11tnlqehnq8&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43se8FqgrU&s=_q z_J664p21UjYhPcO1clI7UZE6BC99x11tnlqehnq8&e= George Kirikos:So, will there be another GNSO council status update, meeting with IGOs, etc? Mary Wong:we can discuss the joburg agenda on next week's call perhaps Steve Chan:Thanks Terri, and here is the link to the specific meeting: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B49J <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B49J&d=DwIFaQ& c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfq a0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43se8FqgrU&s=v72o-APNeyoY oNM5Hmwubx7sab5arVySOPMMTS35qjw&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6mVdPjzVIZckSMOhJSVWWtazk8FKYoq1c43se8FqgrU&s=v7 2o-APNeyoYoNM5Hmwubx7sab5arVySOPMMTS35qjw&e= Terri Agnew:working group taking place Tuesday, 27 June 10:30-12:00 local time Steve Chan:FYI, Mary and I are both traveling the 22nd. George Kirikos:Ugh, that's in the middle of the night in North America. Terri Agnew:The next IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Petter Rindforth:Ballroom 2... George Kirikos:4:30 am Toronto/NYC time. :-) George Kirikos:(6 hours difference) George Kirikos:Bye folks. Mary Wong:there will prob also be a chance for phil and petter to update the Council on Monday Paul Tattersfield:thanks Phil, all bye

1 0

Draft document for review: pros/cons of a separate dispute resolution process
by Mary Wong June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached an initial draft of a pros/cons document relating to the possibility of a separate dispute resolution process for IGOs. Please note that the co-chairs have not yet fully reviewed the draft, so for now it remains a staff draft and subject to edits and comments from them and everyone. They have also requested that staff outline for the Working Group the rationale for further considering this option on the call later today. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0