August 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

PLEASE READ - IMPORTANT - Developing a final recommendation concerning IGO jurisdictional immunity
by Mary Wong Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

Dear Working Group members, For your information, especially those members who have not been able to attend recent Working Group meetings, the co-chairs would like to invite more discussion and participation from everyone as our group works toward developing a final recommendation relating to the issue of IGO jurisdictional immunity. As such, if you have not been able to participate in the group’s recent deliberations on this topic, please be sure to review the most recent documents and call proceedings; in particular, the document summarizing all the options and the related Working Group calls on the topic, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/mwghB. FURTHER BACKGROUND: * In the Initial Report, the Working Group had recommended (as Recommendation #4) in part that no change be made to the Mutual Jurisdiction clause of the current UDRP and URS and that a jurisdictional immunity claim (made in response by an IGO to a court filing by a losing respondent) should be raised in and decided by the court. Consequently, the Working Group published two options for public comment – both relating to possible mechanisms to deal with the situation where the IGO succeeds in demonstrating its immunity to the court. * In reviewing the many public comments received on the two options, individual Working Group members proposed a number of additional options for consideration. With one exception*, all the existing options remain under discussion but the Working Group will need to come to a consensus on which of the remaining options will be its final recommendation on this topic. * (*The exception is what is known as Option 5 in the document posted on the wiki page) REQUEST FROM THE CO-CHAIRS: * As the plan is to have all our final recommendations completed, and their text approved by the Working Group before the next ICANN Public Meeting at the end of October, all Working Group members – especially those who have not been actively participating in the ongoing discussion - are encouraged to weigh in on this mailing list with your views before our next scheduled call on Thursday 7 September. Thank you. Cheers Mary

1 0

CALL CANCELLED FOR THIS WEEK (Re: Agenda/docs for August 31st call?)
by Mary Wong Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

Dear all, Following consultation with the Working Group co-chairs, it has been decided that we will cancel the Working Group call this week (31 August), to allow for more time to review and discuss the various options currently under discussion as regards how to deal with the issue of IGO jurisdictional immunity. Please look out for a further message today on this topic. Thank you. Cheers Mary On 8/30/17, 08:34, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, Is there an agenda or any documents to read for tomorrow's call (assuming we have one tomorrow)? Normally those are sent out well in advance to give members of this PDP ample time to prepare, making the call more productive. 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

Agenda/docs for August 31st call?
by George Kirikos Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

Hi folks, Is there an agenda or any documents to read for tomorrow's call (assuming we have one tomorrow)? Normally those are sent out well in advance to give members of this PDP ample time to prepare, making the call more productive. 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, 24 August 2017
by Terri Agnew Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 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, 24 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-24aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: (unavailable for this meeting) 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 Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Poncelet Ileleji Apologies: none 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/mwghB> https://community.icann.org/x/mwghB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 24 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 24 August 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_m wghB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ mwghB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DRrtrcDBDQalY6Ukrlcc-YwNwqJb92yqK8p5KQ0tX3c &s=1dWgeTqCLgkHFz__1OE2V95T3xcGpGgtiWh-RtwFThg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DRrtrcDBDQalY6Ukrlcc-YwNwqJb92yqK8p5KQ0tX3c&s=1d WgeTqCLgkHFz__1OE2V95T3xcGpGgtiWh-RtwFThg&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Steve Chan:Hi Terri. Still need to join the bridge :) Petter Rindforth:Not sure that you can hear me today, but I am online and can hear you, so at least I'll use the chat George Kirikos:No dial-in Petter? Petter Rindforth:Travelling Petter Rindforth:And spell you name online, instead of saying it 3-4 times before you will be connected George Kirikos:Exactly, Petter. George Kirikos:https://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/471400,microsofts-speech-recogni tion-engine-is-as-good-as-a-person.aspx George Kirikos:Perhaps blast out an email reminder, to get the stragglers? :-) Mary Wong:Apologies, I was on anotehr call that ran slightly over George Kirikos:First 2 pages are just historical, so it's actually shorter. George Kirikos:Also, pages 15 & 16 aren't controversial. Mary Wong:@George, and there are also page breaks between sections :) George Kirikos:Exactly, Mary. :-) Mary Wong:Note that much of the entries were retained from the earlier June version, with additions based on the WG's subsequent deliberations, especially on the newer Options. Please refer to the redline version to see the differences. Paul Tattersfield:There's one going to the Supreme Court at the momment 5 years after the initial UDRP Mary Wong:Disadvantage #2 should also be read in context of #3 George Kirikos:Forfeiting the UDRP outcome, right. Mary Wong:We meant it as an illustration, to elicit more specific notes on what the benefits are to both sides. George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en (see 4(k)) Petter Rindforth 2:I agree that it is important to try to make our recommendations without changing UDRP/URS, in order also to finalize without waiting for the WG dealing with UDRP, etc (starting that phase in the near future...) George Kirikos:@Petter: Each option would change the UDRP/URS, but only in a minor aspect (i.e. 4(k)), which only affects how the registrar enforces the decision, if the court case has that immunity issue. George Kirikos:So, from the point of view of NAF/WIPO/etc, the policies won't change at all under Options 1 or 2. Paul Tattersfield:I beleive if an IGO initiated an action in any other forum other than UDRP they would have to waive immunity George Kirikos:Yes, #7 didn't make sense to me either. Mary Wong:@Paul, to go to court, yes; and that is also why it is important to recall (as Phil has noted) that by submitting to Mutual Jurisdiction, an IGO is likely in some jurisdictions to be deemed to have waived its immunity as well. Paul Tattersfield:Wouldn't the mutual jurisdiction clause be less onerous as it is only a wavier of jurisdictional immunity? Berry Cobb:Yes Mary Wong:@Paul, that's true too. Again it comes down to a matter of strategic choice for any complainant, in this case, IGOs. Berry Cobb:And if it proves difficult to fill out, it can be removed before import into the final report. Mary Wong:@George, we did not attempt to capture all possible costs and impacts - we had thought the WG could complete the exercise. We certainly did not intend to present a complete, closed, one-sided case. As Berry mentioned, this is more of a qualitative exercise so staff did not feel it appropriate to do more than present a starter draft. Petter Rindforth 2:Although that is not likely to be used by IGO's, as we know from their comments (= using third party, etc) Paul Tattersfield:I think it's helpful even if it's not exhasutive George Kirikos:Calling "More consistent with the requests from the GAC and IGOs" a benefit.....is kind of weak. George Kirikos:This "disadvantage" is the same as option #1, so it's not a biggie. Mary Wong:@George, note that while the GAC supported arbitration, it was not for the scenario where an IGO would still have to prove immunity in a court. Paul Tattersfield:Was anyone around when WIPO went for ADR rather then Arbitration for UDRP? George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en Paragraph 9 already handles that, Phil. George Kirikos:9. Policy Modifications. We reserve the right to modify this Policy at any time with the permission of ICANN. We will post our revised Policy at <URL> at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. Unless this Policy has already been invoked by the submission of a complaint to a Provider, in which event the version of the Policy in effect at the time it was invoked will apply to you until the dispute is over, all such changes will be binding upon you with respect to any domain name registration dispute, whether the dispute arose before, on or after the effective date of our change. In the event that you object to a change in this Policy, your sole remedy is to cancel your domain name registration with us, provided that you will not be entitled to a refund of any fees you paid to us. The revised Policy will apply to you until you cancel your domain name registration Petter Rindforth 2:I think it is the second - UDRP is mentioned as an example in the contracts George Kirikos:Sound is good. Mary Wong:@Phil, @George - because Option 1 would render a substantive decision void without there being judicial scrutiny. But as noted, staff supporting this group are not legal process experts. Paul Tattersfield:Can we make it so all aribitration documents are to be published? George Kirikos:But not better than Option #1 from registrants' point of view. Paul Tattersfield:Given this is a third party initiated action, would a clause in a contract between a registrar and a registrant binding the registrant to arbitration be even enforceable? Jay Chapman:I would like to speak, Phil, after the impact analysis Jay Chapman:I need to dial in Mary Wong:@Paul, that is the point I was trying to describe a few minutes ago. Petter Rindforth 2:I agree that Opt 2 is good for registrants, more legally sure as the case can be treated independent of immunity claim, but it is also better for IGOs than Opt 1 Petter Rindforth 2:Meaning "domain holder" Berry Cobb:@Phil - was only an example, not definitive. Mary Wong:@Paul - following up, meaning that it can be a question whether a "pass through" obligation for the Registrar to include agreement to the UDRP in all its registration agreements is enough to bind a registrant to arbitration thereby. Paul Tattersfield:I'm thinking it could possibly be even more problematic where the registrant is a consumer rather than a professional registrant especially in European jurisdictions? Jay Chapman:Can't find the dial in number, so here it is: Phil, If an additional arbitration existed, and before even assessing the merits of registrants rights vs. IGO immunity, I have little doubt that a court would be, at the very least, tempted, and perhaps on average, inclined to use the additional arbitration's existence as a basis to punt the case away. That's a reasonable , legitimate concern for registrants Jay Chapman:and a disadvantage for option 2 Mary Wong:@Jay, would you like us to dial out to you? George Kirikos:That's an important point. George Kirikos:i.e. adding Option 2 makes it more likely that a court would find "immunity". Paul Tattersfield:Emirates case in the UK George Kirikos:He's typing. Paul Tattersfield:It bars UK rcitizens from bringing cases George Kirikos:Hit "enter" to split your longer thoughts into multiple lines. :-) Paul Tattersfield:my machine is to slow carry on I'll tyoe it in the chat George Kirikos:So, Option #3 is advocating for "quasi in rem" jurisdiction of the courts, essentially, only in relation to the domain's outcome. Petter Rindforth 2:Can be combined with Opt 2 George Kirikos:Or Option #1. :-) Petter Rindforth 2:It is not sure that the court will accept it Paul Tattersfield:Here is a good summary of the Emirates case https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brownejacobson.com_ about-2Dus_news-2Dand-2Dmedia_published-2Darticles_2012_04_toth-2Dv-2Demirat es <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brownejacobson.com _about-2Dus_news-2Dand-2Dmedia_published-2Darticles_2012_04_toth-2Dv-2Demira tes&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgm kXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DRrtrcDBDQalY6Ukrlcc-YwNwqJb92yqK8p5KQ0tX3c&s =xaYV3QOQW6kUPWmKZulXorZHJdI5V3uwtjtgpB3ZLL8&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DRrtrcDBDQalY6Ukrlcc-YwNwqJb92yqK8p5KQ0tX3c&s=xa YV3QOQW6kUPWmKZulXorZHJdI5V3uwtjtgpB3ZLL8&e= Petter Rindforth 2:Adding it to option 2 is a better solution George Kirikos:Option #3 gives something to IGOs, and Option #1 gives something to registrants, so it balances things out. Petter Rindforth 2:If the parties involved are identified, I agree. And to add it to option 2 will likely also make the arbitration phase more rare Paul Tattersfield:I don't think 3 really adds anything that isn't already there George Kirikos:Page 11. Only 4 pages left. George Kirikos:It would also make vitiating more rare, too, in option #1. George Kirikos:Option #1 for existing domains, option 2 for newly created domains, yes. George Kirikos:Option #5 has a wrong premise, so not much discussion needed. Petter Rindforth 2:I think we can in fact delete this option by now George Kirikos:Canada/USA would. George Kirikos:So, that would cover .com, at the registry level. i.e. all important domains. Petter Rindforth 2:Mary's hand is up - probably because we asked for ICANN internal legaL OCMMENTS George Kirikos:UK, common law (since many countries descend from those common law principles). George Kirikos:I think even civil law countries would recognize it, e.g. from admiralty law. Petter Rindforth 2:"legal comments"- Mary, is there a possibility to get legal input on this issue withoiut extending our time? Paul Tattersfield:Perhaps we should change the mutual jurusdiction clause to registry,registrar,registrant jurisdictions George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en (4k) Mary Wong:@GEorge, the question is whether those courts outside US/Canada would recognize domain names as proper subjects for in rem actions. Petter Rindforth 2:I am not so sure that it can be generally used in Europe Mary Wong:@Petter, thanks - yes, that was one of the concerns I tried to note. Mary Wong:@Petter - are you asking about external legal advice on this option? Paul Tattersfield:Could we recommend the RPM WG to look at it? Petter Rindforth 2:No, I refer to a couple of questions discussed - it think - at last meeting, that perhaps could be investigated by your own internal legal "experts" Mary Wong:Not international law, but national laws in differet countries about recognizing domain names under in rem actions. Terri Agnew 2:@Phil, your apology is noted for next week Terri Agnew 2:IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes George Kirikos:Perhaps next call we call on each person to see which options they support, maybe on a 5 point scale? George Kirikos:(strongly support, support, neutral, do not support, strongly oppose) George Kirikos:"do not support = oppose" George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:Bye all Petter Rindforth 2:It will be very productive!

1 0

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Updated Impact Analysis document
by Mary Wong Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached, for your review and discussion on our upcoming Working Group call this Thursday, an updated Impact Analysis document into which staff has added the new options that had been identified by Working Group members since the last time we reviewed an earlier version of this document. We have also attempted to include those benefits and disadvantages that we believe have been raised in the recent discussions over the various options. Our co-chairs have seen this updated document, and Phil has also added several notes to supplement those from staff. Also attached is a redline that shows the changes that were made in this version, as compared to the June version that was discussed by the Working Group. Finally, please note that while staff and the co-chairs have included notes on benefits and disadvantages, the actual Impact Analysis of the options under discussion is a qualitative exercise, and as such it was staff’s assumption that completion of the document will depend on the efforts of and further discussion among the Working Group. Thanks and cheers Mary On 8/22/17, 11:07, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: Hello George and everyone, As far as we know, the call scheduled for this Thursday is still on. Staff expects to send an updated Impact Analysis document to the Working Group for discussion on the call, once we receive the go-ahead to do so from the co-chairs. We also hope to complete a draft Final Report this week, on which we presume discussions will take place after the Working Group completes its deliberations on the updated Impact Analysis. I hope this is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary On 8/22/17, 07:35, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, I notice we have a call scheduled for this Thursday (2 days from now). Is it still on? There hadn't been any new documents (i.e. the draft final report) to discuss, and if any new documents are sent, there'd be very limited time to review them in depth. 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

August 24 call -- still on?
by George Kirikos Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Hi folks, I notice we have a call scheduled for this Thursday (2 days from now). Is it still on? There hadn't been any new documents (i.e. the draft final report) to discuss, and if any new documents are sent, there'd be very limited time to review them in depth. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

UPDATED : Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG call on Thursday, 03 August 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 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, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-03aug17-en.mp3[audio.ica…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p91rb6mos7a/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Mason Cole Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa David Maher ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/eAghB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 03 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. (just stepping away for a few minutes) bbbiab George Kirikos:Let the trumpets sound, for I have made my triumphant return! :-) Philip Corwin:Hello all. I am participating by Adobe only from a remote fishing village in Maine. Was just on BC call and my audio stopped working twice, so let's see how this one goes. Petter Rindforth:Michelle, can you send a reminder of this meeting Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil and Petter. Mary Wong:Hi Phil, all - Phil, hope you are having a wonderful and relaxing time, thanks for calling in! Philip Corwin:No cell service in my cottage, and no land line, just pokey wifi. Forces me to be on vacation ;-) Mary Wong:Great arrangements! :) Philip Corwin:Let me know when there is audio so I can see if I'm hearing it. And thanks Mary George Kirikos:Mary is speaking. Mary Wong:@Phil, can you hear us? (thanks, George!) Philip Corwin:Audio silence here.. I'll reboot adobe and see if that helps George Kirikos:Are there any plans for ICANN to ditch the Adobe software, given that it needs Flash? Flash is being phased out by Adobe in the next few years. Philip Corwin:Now I hear you George Kirikos:4 participants (removing staff) George Kirikos:5 rather George Kirikos:Oops, back to 6 now, lol. Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Is Paul Keating coming, to speak about his Option #5?? Philip Corwin:And we have Jay on audio only Mary Wong:@George, we pinged Paul K but don't believe we heard back Philip Corwin:George, I noted your email the other day regarding whether certain provisions in UDRP providers' Supplemental Rules went beyond permissible scope. That is an issue that I wish to see investigated by the RPM Review WG when it gets to UDRP next year. That doesn't prevent this WG from making a policy recommendation on the issue raised by Paul, although we are somewhat handicapped in considering his proposal absent his direct participation. Philip Corwin:Paul K, to be clear George Kirikos:Right, Petter. George Kirikos:Some still need to be fully fleshed out, too. George Kirikos:Paul K's suggestion is to do nothing. :-) George Kirikos:(but, the premise is possibly faulty) Philip Corwin:I have lost my audio feed :( Mary Wong:Oh dear, Phil - I guess we can't do a dialout to you if you don't have cell service or a land line Philip Corwin:That is correct George Kirikos:Perhaps try Wifi phonecall, and not use the Adobe aspect? (i.e just voice, e.g. Whatsapp, etc?) George Kirikos:Or Skype. Mary Wong:I was just asking if the WG would mind if staff referred the options to ICANN Legal, not to make a recommendation, but to see what process, costs, and feasibility issues may arise by pursuing any of them. Mary Wong:One thing I forgot to add is that having experienced legal process folks go through the options may be very helpful for the impact analysis as well. Mary Wong:@George, won't there be a concern with jurisdicitons that don't recognize one of these legal basis (in rem, quasi, personam) for domain names, so we may be inadvertently favoring some jurisdicitons over others? Philip Corwin:Even though Adobe says my connection status is excellent I still have no audio, even after two reboots. I'll wait a few minutes and see if it returns. George Kirikos:@Mary: possibly, it depends where the respondent (domain name owner) sues, i.e. if it's at the location of the registrar/registry, then the courts would have jurisdiction. Paul Tattersfield:its ok here Phil Mary Wong:OK thanks Petter - we will contact Legal and let you all know the result George Kirikos:Only option #6 has yet to be discussed. George Kirikos:If Phil is typing something long, he can hit "return" and split it into 2 parts. Philip Corwin:Skype not working, says it can't access my sound card. Maybe Adobe is causing that.. Anyway, I will try one more hgard reboot of Adobe and if that doesn't work I shall give up George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.ht… Philip Corwin:Sorry but that's not working. have a good call; I'll review the transcript. Bye Mary Wong:@George, thanks - yes, I was wondering whether that would mean we are restricting the jurisdictional options as a result. George Kirikos:A court would have authority if it's the court in the jurisdiction of the registrar/registry, yes. George Kirikos:So, if we want to cover ALL the bases, we'd need to remove the language in 4(k) and allow for those jurisdictions, and not just the mutual jurisdiction agreed by the IGO (perhaps just for IGO disputes0. George Kirikos:). George Kirikos:Exactly, the 10 days.....although, the lawsuit might happen even before the UDRP is decided, etc. George Kirikos:So, it's very poorly worded. George Kirikos:+1 Petter George Kirikos:Arbitration costs can be very high, by the way (e.g. ICANN's own arbitrations in relation to the new gTLDs have been in the 6-figures, etc.) George Kirikos:Not necessarily cheaper than the courts. Mary Wong:I can ask but I'm not sure they will feel equipped to comment George Kirikos:See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… (para 3(b)) Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 4k was simply to try and stop the registrant trying to bring an action against ICANN, UDRP provider, the registry, registrars etc. George Kirikos:Right, in rem or quasi in rem would simply determine the rightful owner of the domain name, and not other aspects (e.g. damages against the IGO, etc.) Mary Wong:The UDRP does not speak to whether domain names, in court proceedings, will be treated as in rem property. Paul Tattersfield:I think the damages is being overplayed they are only waiving immunity from jurisdiction George Kirikos:@Mary: yes. At that time (1999), it didn't contemplate whether domains were property, etc. Mary Wong:Unfortunately, even today, it is not clear in many jurisdictions whether they consider domain names as property, as that has not been tested in court. George Kirikos:@mary: for the most important disputes (.com, at the registry level), it is property. And it is in Ontario, for my domains. :-) [although, I have no domains conflicting with Article 6ter names, so no potential conflicts I ever see] Mary Wong:Hi George, I'm just saying that, outside the US and Ontario, it really isn't that clear. George Kirikos:Option 4 relates to option #1, though. George Kirikos:i.e. default is option #1, but option #2 for some names. :-) George Kirikos:Yes. George Kirikos:Maybe someone should phone Paul K? George Kirikos:(if he wants to get it done by the weekend?) Mary Wong:We will follow up with Paul, and ask for a response to the WG by Monday. George Kirikos:Option 6 relates to option #3, too. George Kirikos:Next meeting in 2 weeks? Or was it 3? Michelle DeSmyter:August 24th George Kirikos:So, we'll have a draft final report the week of August 17th, and then a call to discuss it on August 24th. Mary Wong:@George, that's the idea ... we'll do our best to get a document out in good time before the 24th George Kirikos:Consensus. Mary Wong:We will do an alternative timeline, with either no or a shorter public comment period? George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ George Kirikos:June 19th was the last email to that mailing list. George Kirikos:No, this is the other small group, with their separate mailing list. George Kirikos:https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc Paul Tattersfield:bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks.....have a nice 3 weeks. :-)

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 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, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-03aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p91rb6mos7a/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Petter Rindforth Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman Mason Cole Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa David Maher ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 03 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 03 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. (just stepping away for a few minutes) bbbiab George Kirikos:Let the trumpets sound, for I have made my triumphant return! :-) Philip Corwin:Hello all. I am participating by Adobe only from a remote fishing village in Maine. Was just on BC call and my audio stopped working twice, so let's see how this one goes. Petter Rindforth:Michelle, can you send a reminder of this meeting Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil and Petter. Mary Wong:Hi Phil, all - Phil, hope you are having a wonderful and relaxing time, thanks for calling in! Philip Corwin:No cell service in my cottage, and no land line, just pokey wifi. Forces me to be on vacation ;-) Mary Wong:Great arrangements! :) Philip Corwin:Let me know when there is audio so I can see if I'm hearing it. And thanks Mary George Kirikos:Mary is speaking. Mary Wong:@Phil, can you hear us? (thanks, George!) Philip Corwin:Audio silence here.. I'll reboot adobe and see if that helps George Kirikos:Are there any plans for ICANN to ditch the Adobe software, given that it needs Flash? Flash is being phased out by Adobe in the next few years. Philip Corwin:Now I hear you George Kirikos:4 participants (removing staff) George Kirikos:5 rather George Kirikos:Oops, back to 6 now, lol. Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Is Paul Keating coming, to speak about his Option #5?? Philip Corwin:And we have Jay on audio only Mary Wong:@George, we pinged Paul K but don't believe we heard back Philip Corwin:George, I noted your email the other day regarding whether certain provisions in UDRP providers' Supplemental Rules went beyond permissible scope. That is an issue that I wish to see investigated by the RPM Review WG when it gets to UDRP next year. That doesn't prevent this WG from making a policy recommendation on the issue raised by Paul, although we are somewhat handicapped in considering his proposal absent his direct participation. Philip Corwin:Paul K, to be clear George Kirikos:Right, Petter. George Kirikos:Some still need to be fully fleshed out, too. George Kirikos:Paul K's suggestion is to do nothing. :-) George Kirikos:(but, the premise is possibly faulty) Philip Corwin:I have lost my audio feed :( Mary Wong:Oh dear, Phil - I guess we can't do a dialout to you if you don't have cell service or a land line Philip Corwin:That is correct George Kirikos:Perhaps try Wifi phonecall, and not use the Adobe aspect? (i.e just voice, e.g. Whatsapp, etc?) George Kirikos:Or Skype. Mary Wong:I was just asking if the WG would mind if staff referred the options to ICANN Legal, not to make a recommendation, but to see what process, costs, and feasibility issues may arise by pursuing any of them. Mary Wong:One thing I forgot to add is that having experienced legal process folks go through the options may be very helpful for the impact analysis as well. Mary Wong:@George, won't there be a concern with jurisdicitons that don't recognize one of these legal basis (in rem, quasi, personam) for domain names, so we may be inadvertently favoring some jurisdicitons over others? Philip Corwin:Even though Adobe says my connection status is excellent I still have no audio, even after two reboots. I'll wait a few minutes and see if it returns. George Kirikos:@Mary: possibly, it depends where the respondent (domain name owner) sues, i.e. if it's at the location of the registrar/registry, then the courts would have jurisdiction. Paul Tattersfield:its ok here Phil Mary Wong:OK thanks Petter - we will contact Legal and let you all know the result George Kirikos:Only option #6 has yet to be discussed. George Kirikos:If Phil is typing something long, he can hit "return" and split it into 2 parts. Philip Corwin:Skype not working, says it can't access my sound card. Maybe Adobe is causing that.. Anyway, I will try one more hgard reboot of Adobe and if that doesn't work I shall give up George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.ht… Philip Corwin:Sorry but that's not working. have a good call; I'll review the transcript. Bye Mary Wong:@George, thanks - yes, I was wondering whether that would mean we are restricting the jurisdictional options as a result. George Kirikos:A court would have authority if it's the court in the jurisdiction of the registrar/registry, yes. George Kirikos:So, if we want to cover ALL the bases, we'd need to remove the language in 4(k) and allow for those jurisdictions, and not just the mutual jurisdiction agreed by the IGO (perhaps just for IGO disputes0. George Kirikos:). George Kirikos:Exactly, the 10 days.....although, the lawsuit might happen even before the UDRP is decided, etc. George Kirikos:So, it's very poorly worded. George Kirikos:+1 Petter George Kirikos:Arbitration costs can be very high, by the way (e.g. ICANN's own arbitrations in relation to the new gTLDs have been in the 6-figures, etc.) George Kirikos:Not necessarily cheaper than the courts. Mary Wong:I can ask but I'm not sure they will feel equipped to comment George Kirikos:See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… (para 3(b)) Paul Tattersfield:I would guess 4k was simply to try and stop the registrant trying to bring an action against ICANN, UDRP provider, the registry, registrars etc. George Kirikos:Right, in rem or quasi in rem would simply determine the rightful owner of the domain name, and not other aspects (e.g. damages against the IGO, etc.) Mary Wong:The UDRP does not speak to whether domain names, in court proceedings, will be treated as in rem property. Paul Tattersfield:I think the damages is being overplayed they are only waiving immunity from jurisdiction George Kirikos:@Mary: yes. At that time (1999), it didn't contemplate whether domains were property, etc. Mary Wong:Unfortunately, even today, it is not clear in many jurisdictions whether they consider domain names as property, as that has not been tested in court. George Kirikos:@mary: for the most important disputes (.com, at the registry level), it is property. And it is in Ontario, for my domains. :-) [although, I have no domains conflicting with Article 6ter names, so no potential conflicts I ever see] Mary Wong:Hi George, I'm just saying that, outside the US and Ontario, it really isn't that clear. George Kirikos:Option 4 relates to option #1, though. George Kirikos:i.e. default is option #1, but option #2 for some names. :-) George Kirikos:Yes. George Kirikos:Maybe someone should phone Paul K? George Kirikos:(if he wants to get it done by the weekend?) Mary Wong:We will follow up with Paul, and ask for a response to the WG by Monday. George Kirikos:Option 6 relates to option #3, too. George Kirikos:Next meeting in 2 weeks? Or was it 3? Michelle DeSmyter:August 24th George Kirikos:So, we'll have a draft final report the week of August 17th, and then a call to discuss it on August 24th. Mary Wong:@George, that's the idea ... we'll do our best to get a document out in good time before the 24th George Kirikos:Consensus. Mary Wong:We will do an alternative timeline, with either no or a shorter public comment period? George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/ George Kirikos:June 19th was the last email to that mailing list. George Kirikos:No, this is the other small group, with their separate mailing list. George Kirikos:https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc Paul Tattersfield:bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks.....have a nice 3 weeks. :-)

1 0

Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 3 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

Dear all, For the Working Group call scheduled for tomorrow (Thursday 3 August at 1600 UTC), and in accordance with the draft Timeline to PDP Completion that was discussed on the call last week, we anticipate that the agenda for the call will be: 1. Roll call/updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of the various options relating to Recommendation 4 that have been suggested by Working Group members, with a view toward concluding discussion of this topic and agreeing on a way forward 3. Next steps/next meeting Staff notes that there have been some additional emails from George Kirikos since the last Working Group call, outlining a possible Option 6 and commenting on Option 2 (see the mailing list archives here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/thread.html) We have therefore updated the Options document from last week, to include George’s Option 6 – it is attached for your review and we will have it displayed in the Adobe Connect room for the call as well as uploaded to the Working Group wiki. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:44 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July Dear all, For the next Working Group call, scheduled for Thursday 27 July at 1600 UTC, the co-chairs would like to continue discussions on the topics from last week, i.e. the additional options to Recommendation #4 that were raised by George Kirikos and Paul Keating (and which are being referred to as Options 3, 4 and 5), as well as the necessary elements of any arbitration option that may be incorporated into Recommendation #4. You will find the documents that were used on the call last week for both these topics attached. In addition, the Working Group is being asked to decide if it wishes to publish its draft Final Report for public comment, as was suggested in the community session at ICANN59. Staff has worked with the co-chairs to develop a proposed timeline for the completion of our work to take into account that option as well as the possibility of canceling a few calls due to the unavailability of one or both the co-chairs in August – please see the attached for a sense of the dates. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 19:30 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Arbitration Elements paper, Options 3 & 4, plus new suggestion Dear Working Group members, Please find attached, as requested, an updated version of the Co-Chairs’ Paper on Arbitration Elements. The updates were made based on suggestions and discussions on the last Working Group call of 12 July 2017. As also noted on that call, the next Working Group call will include a further discussion of the updated paper, as well as suggsted Options #3 and #4 (to the Working Group’s preliminary recommendation 4). Staff has taken the liberty of extracting the relevant portions of these two suggestions, as well as adding the latest suggestion from Paul Keating to the mailing list a few days ago, and compiling them into the second attached document for your convenient reference. Briefly, here is the origin of the additional suggestions: * Option 3 (from Paul Keating, suggested on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017): https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw * Option 4 (suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html * Additional alternative suggestion from Paul Keating via email to the Working Group mailing list on 14 July: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html We hope the documents are useful. Thanks and cheers Mary

3 2

- ACTION ITEM: Update Impact Analysis Document
by Steve Chan Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

Dear WG Members, During last week’s WG meeting on 27 July, it was suggested that the impact analysis document be updated to include additional options that have been raised beyond just options one and two. However, staff’s understanding is that this action item is expected once the WG pares down the options, which are now up to six, to a core set of options that it feels are worth consideration for final recommendation. If this understanding is incorrect and for instance, the WG is anticipating that the document would include all six options and should be made available in the near future, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support 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/

4 4