September 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 28 September 2017
by Terri Agnew Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 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, 28 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-28sep17-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-28sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p3w0l0axx1u/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6 443ff49bfca3e762f690bbacbaefaf5bc7f0e0b28a3e10d0> https://participate.icann.org/p3w0l0axx1u/ 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 Mason Cole Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman David Maher Petter Rindforth Osvaldo Novoa Jim Bikoff Apologies: Paul Keating ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan 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/M4JEB> https://community.icann.org/x/M4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 28 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Terri Agnew:meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_M 4JEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ M4JEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08 &s=1pclmyA9WDnewP1tL2GUAtPRgllPc4hzAf2D6dZ4rKI&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=1p clmyA9WDnewP1tL2GUAtPRgllPc4hzAf2D6dZ4rKI&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/00084 7.html Philip Corwin:dialing in Osvaldo Novoa:hello all Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone George Kirikos:No Mary, Steve, etc. today? George Kirikos:Here's that other mailing list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-September/date.html Mary Wong:Hello everyone - apologies for my lateness; I was running another meeting. Steve is also in another meeting so he will not be joining till later. George Kirikos:No sound from Mary? George Kirikos:Phone is more reliable than VOIP. George Kirikos:Here's a list of people attending: https://registration.icann.org/reg_disp.php?id=abudhabi60 Paul Tattersfield:Hi Mary, thank you for posting the Secretary General's letter, it is really appreciated. Things are a bit mad here at the moment and I haven't had chance yet to respond on the mail list, but I think it raises some important issues which hopefully out final report will be able to clarify. Mary Wong:No worries, Paul - thanks for your patience, and I'm glad it was informative. Petter Rindforth:...and the fact that they are attending in Abu Dhabi does not automatically means that they will be at our meeting. George Kirikos:Of note, the recent Brazil position on ICANN, GAC, and "public interest", see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theregister.co.uk_2 017_09_27_brazil-5Fdot-5Famazon-5Fgtld_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theregister.co.uk_ 2017_09_27_brazil-5Fdot-5Famazon-5Fgtld_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgf kbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI 4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=Rm226blqK5ClS3wUmrPiiRWk8TXwMZVRnilW_D QiV1o&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=Rm 226blqK5ClS3wUmrPiiRWk8TXwMZVRnilW_DQiV1o&e= Mary Wong:Link to the Board scorecard that Phil just read from: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_resolutions-2Djohannesburg59-2Dgac-2Dadvice-2Dscorecard-2D23sep 17-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_resolutions-2Djohannesburg59-2Dgac-2Dadvice-2Dscorecard-2D23se p17-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dX AvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdx WcKVl08&s=7qsP4cg-z5W9NUrYWzs7NFA2T-vxec9SEuDKneyI7Lo&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=7q sP4cg-z5W9NUrYWzs7NFA2T-vxec9SEuDKneyI7Lo&e= George Kirikos:""It is the right and duty of governments - and not of Amazon the company, nor any panel constituted by three nationals of a single country in their individual capacity, nor even of the ICANN Board of Directors - to identify the public policy issues that may justify the Board to adopt certain decisions," Filho said." Mary Wong:The Bylaws actually specify the GAC's role in identifying public policy concerns. George Kirikos:Perhaps, Mary. But, identifying "concerns", vs. making analysis and policy choices, is quite different. Paul Tattersfield:Brian is very good at working political narratives when the substantive facts don't support his position George Kirikos:Isn't it 30, not 28? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48347895 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48347895&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4 fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=z6WK3YDNAIrh3ZF2LJqik9NYU9YZ8W5GV_P75eC ftsI&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=z6 WK3YDNAIrh3ZF2LJqik9NYU9YZ8W5GV_P75eCftsI&e= George Kirikos:We had submissions from many constituencies in the comment period. Mary Wong:Staff has contacted all members who have not been attending our calls and received several responses. We can speak to that if you like. We also updated a few email addresses, and two responded asking to be removed. George Kirikos:Would be great to hear about that, Mary. Paul Tattersfield:That would be good Mary Paul Tattersfield:Did the two who left give any indications as to why they wished to be removed? Mary Wong:Griffin Barnett and Thomas Rickert George Kirikos:30 at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48347895 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48347895&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4 fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=z6WK3YDNAIrh3ZF2LJqik9NYU9YZ8W5GV_P75eC ftsI&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Yn3EhVWI4fdtITyWqYbRqhO6P3THHtCftvdxWcKVl08&s=z6 WK3YDNAIrh3ZF2LJqik9NYU9YZ8W5GV_P75eCftsI&e= (but 2 dropped?) Mary Wong:We will continue to update the list as we hear back from people one way or the other George Kirikos:Do we have any comparison on past PDPs, as to how many participants there were, as a baseline? Mary Wong:@George, that's a difficult comparison because different PDPs attract different participants/interests. George Kirikos:Plus, we had the independent legal expert from Professor Swaine, which is separate from any "constituency" being able to influence the outcome. Paul Tattersfield:It's a very niche topic which requires a lot of time (years) and people are busy so they have to choose which interests to dedicate their time to George Kirikos:The prior PDP to his on IGOs had the participation of the IGOs. They made a strategic choice to not be active in this PDP. George Kirikos:*to his = to this Paul Tattersfield:why? George Kirikos:@PaulT: presumably so they could criticize the outcome, if they didn't get what they want, and so they could try to get the sympathy of the GAC behind the scenes. George Kirikos:Especially since GAC makes statements without any well-reasoned analysis, so perhaps IGOs thought that would help them, if they didn't have to justify their positions. Mary Wong:Staff just did a quick look back - it looks like we've generally hovered around 30 Mary Wong:For members who have signed up, anyway (not necessarily active on calls) George Kirikos:Steve just joined. George Kirikos:Welcome Steve. Steve Chan:Thanks George, just rolling off another call. Mary Wong:Unregistered rights George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/00084 9.html (response of earlier today) Mary Wong:Thanks for spotting that, George - yes, it was Option 5 David W Maher:@George Could you speak a little louder thanx Paul Tattersfield:I have an overarching question, Are the IGO's actually entitled to immunity given that they are initiating the action? In any other fourm they would have to waive immunity to bring an action. Mary Wong:@Paul, I believe Prof Swaine mentioned that in his memo as well; the question being whether agreeing to Mutual Jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of their jurisdictional immunity. Some courts may view that as the case. Jay Chapman:Valid point, George Paul Tattersfield:I think Prof. Swaine wasn't quite right when he considered immunity, When he tried to "disaggregate" - his thinking is wrong. The comparable case is where a TM holder initiates a UDRP against an IGO. If the TM holder went to court the IGO could claim immunity. I believe it is incorrect to reverse this when the IGO initiates an action in court the IGO has to waive it's immunity for the court to determine the case and so the process is fair it has to waive its immunity from execution. George Kirikos:Right, it doesn't have to be the full implementation. But, sufficient details to know what one is supporting, imho. Mary Wong:@Paul, I think the discussion was about whether agreeing to Mutual Jurisdiction by filing a UDRP/URS complaint amounts to a waiver of immunity should there be a court case. Mary Wong:Abu Dhabi session currently scheduled for Wednesday 1 November, 1700-1830 local time. Paul Tattersfield:That was a separate issue Mary, just a sec I'll get the paragraph with the error George Kirikos:Were we going to have another comment period?? George Kirikos:(that topic was broached last week, but it's still unclear to me) Mary Wong:@George, I don't believe so - with the current plan Phil is describing. Paul Tattersfield:@Mary it is in 3. Discssion (Page 8) Paul Tattersfield:"The core question is whether an IGO is "entitled to immunity," but the baseline assumptions may be disaggregated. An IGO's immunity would be most clearly at issue if the IGO had not itself initiated any related judicial proceeding-since that would risk waiving any immunity to which it would be entitled, including to counterclaims18-and the UDPRP's Mutual Jurisdiction provision were absent. This might be the case, for example, where a domain-name registrant has sought a declaratory judgment in relation to some actual or potential infringement by an IGO.19 Although that is not the scenario of principal concern here, imagining that scenario usefully isolates the question as to whether an IGO has a legitimate expectation that it would be entitled to immunity absent the UDRP and its concessions. If such immunity is minimal or uncertain, then any compromises required by the UDRP loom less large; if the IGO would otherwise be entitled to immunity, however, its potential sacrifice seems more substantial. George Kirikos:@Mary: I thought he was arguing *for* it last week, (I was arguing against), but maybe he was just trying to illustrate the other side of the argument, without support of either one. Mary Wong:@George, without answering for Phil, the co-chairs and staff had a post-call discussion after last week's meeting, where this path forward was discussed. The staff understanding is that it will be in lieu of a public comment period. Paul Tattersfield:@Mary Technically if we wanted to reflect the immunity an IGO enjoys in the judicial system we should as a working group look at affording the IGO immunity when a TM holder brings a UDRP dispute against an IGO as this is what a court would do. Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks for the clarification Mary Wong:Re what Phil is describing - the Working Group discussed these elements some time ago, and there is a paper that outlines all of them Paul Tattersfield:I believe it is incorrect to reverse this when the IGO initiates an action in court the IGO has to waive it's immunity for the court to determine the case and so the process is fair it has to waive its immunity from execution. Petter Rindforth:Good summary Mary Wong:@Paul, we may need to think about this further but these topics may be beyond the scope of this PDP. Mary Wong:It isn't really a defense - it is to object to the suit Mary Wong:Doesn't a defense mean a substantive defending against a substantive claim, and not a procedural disposal of the suit? George Kirikos:@Mary: it's a defence against the action. Mary Wong:Maybe we can just say "succeeds in asserting jurisdicitonal immunity" :) George Kirikos:Right, that's fine. George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/00084 9.html and http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html Mary Wong:It may be more appropriate to say "conduct a review to assess the effects of implementing Option C". George Kirikos:5 years, or 10 disputes. George Kirikos:Given that there have never been any in the past, probably 5 years is sufficient. Mary Wong:On the need to clarify what "creaed" or "registered" means, it may be easier to put a footnote there to explain it the way Phil has just described. George Kirikos:But, the "10 cases" handles things if there's a flurry of new cases. George Kirikos:I explicitly said "the earlier of those". Paul Tattersfield:Can we have some explanatory text to introduce the reasoning behind each of the options? I.e brief reasoning cost benefits etc. Paul Tattersfield:George +1 Mary Wong:We can add a footnote to explain "Create Date" Paul Tattersfield:no Paul Tattersfield:it has a new creation date Paul Tattersfield:snapnames is not a good example they have names which go through both routes Paul Tattersfield:1st Jan after the board approval? George Kirikos:I think that also applies to Option A or C too, though, i.e. the date would be when it's published and approved. George Kirikos:(i.e. in the implementation, etc.) George Kirikos:i.e. status quo until the new policy is in effect. Paul Tattersfield:What happens if the number of cases is zero after 5 years? George Kirikos:I actually recommended in the Option 4 that *all* these arbitrations need to be documented, as part of the policy George Kirikos:@Paul: It'd be like that PDDRP review. :-) George Kirikos:"(c) All UDRP/URS providers must flag *all* of their disputes involvingIGOs as complainants, sending the information to ICANN which willmaintain a public record of them (like they used to do for UDRPs, butstopped doing). Not only does ICANN have to track any arbitrationsinvoked in point (b) above, but ICANN must also track any/all courtdisputes invoked and subject to point (a) (i.e. the grandfathereddomain names), and obtain (at ICANN's expense) all the relevant publiccourt documents/filings/evidence." George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.htm l Mary Wong:@George, staff has concerns about reqiring ICANN to track all court cases filed - we are just not sure we can do that with any accuracy. George Kirikos:@Mary: ICANN already does it for its own litigation. George Kirikos:@Mary: registrars would have to be notified of litigation, naturally. Mary Wong:@George, if we are party to a case, yes of course, but we cannot track all courts to find out whether any registrant has filed against an IGO anywhere. George Kirikos:So, it's just communication between the registrars and ICANN. George Kirikos:i.e. the registrants is REQUIRED to notify the registrar, in order to not have the UDRP/URS decision be followed. George Kirikos:*registrant, rather Mary Wong:If it is to be an additional obligation on registrars as a result of Consensus Policy, it will need to be spelled out very expressly as that is not currently an obligation on them under a Consensus Policy or the RAA. Terri Agnew:next call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Petter Rindforth:I'll send you what we have discussed in the passed regarding General Principles for Binding Arbitration - to add to Option C Jay Chapman:Thanks, all. George Kirikos:Bye folks. Mary Wong:I believe the answer is no - i.e. courts do not order parties to arbirate as it has to be voluntary. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks all, bye Mary Wong:Thanks Phil and all. George Kirikos:@Mary: google "court ordered arbitration". There are some hits. Osvaldo Novoa:bye Mary Wong:Thanks, George - will do George Kirikos:Same for "court appointed arbitrators", etc.

1 0

To be added to the description of Option C
by Petter Rindforth Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Hi All, >From our September 6 meeting: General Principles for Binding Arbitration: Substantive law– arbitrator decides dispute under the national law under which the judicial appeal was originally brought, not the UDRP / both parties can mutually agree to proceed under another national law (this is the normal practice in arbitration cases). Procedural rules– same as in the applicable judicial system / different rules can be mutually agreed to by both parties. Venue– to be conducted in an arbitration forum certified to meet certain basic criteria, and cannot be an IGO (e.g., WIPO) or the arbitration forum that decided the underlying UDRP, to assure lack of bias and de novo review. Panelist(s)– Default option is a three-member panel, the chair of which must be a retired judge from that jurisdiction; explore possibility of creating a standing panel from which to choose the two panelists other than the chair (i.e. parties cannot choose the chair of the panel.) Language– same language to be used as in national judicial forum (alternate language can be selected by mutual agreement of the parties). Discovery– same as in judicial case. Interim remedies(e.g., domain locking)? – same as if court case had continued. Remedies– same as in judicial case. Costs– seek to be the same as or lower than in a judicial case. Enforcement of award– decision to uphold UDRP determination would result in domain transfer or extinguishment; enforcement of any available monetary award against IGO needs to be considered, but at a minimum failure to pay could bar it from any future ability to file a UDRP or URS. Precedential value of decision –While there’s no way to fully replicate the precedent of a court decision, policy could state a distinct recommendation that any case shifted to arbitration should consider and seek to follow judicial precedent on similar cases brought under the same law, and also be consistent with prior arbitrations under that law (if any). Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 28 september 2017 17:50:26 +02:00, skrev Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org>: > **CALL STARTING IN 10 MINUTES > > Dear all, > > The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place onThursday, 28 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes > 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET > For other times:http://tinyurl.com/yazkglk6[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_yazkglk6&d=…> > > Agenda wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/M4JEB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> > > Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled:<https://participate.icann.org/crp> > For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). > > Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats<gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Participant passcode: IGO > > Dial in numbers: > > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ > Toll Free NumberARGENTINA 0800-777-0519AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651CHILE 1230-020-2863CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474CROATIA 080-08-06-309CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324EGYPT 0800000-9029ESTONIA 800-011-1093FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368ISRAEL 1-80-9216162ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439LATVIA 8000-3185LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065PERU 0800-53713PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453POLAND 00-800-1212572PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056TURKEY 00-800-151-0516UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702VIETNAM 120-11751 > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Terri > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp> >

1 0

FOR DISCUSSION: Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration this week
by Mary Wong Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Sent by ICANN staff on behalf of the Working Group co-chairs Dear Working Group members, As we near completion of our work on this PDP, we as the co-chairs of our Working Group wish to make the following suggestions for a path forward. Noting that we are now four (4) meetings out from ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi, our plan is to present the draft final text of all our proposed consensus recommendations to the community there for discussion and feedback, prior to filing our Final Report in November. To that end: (1) we particularly request that members who have not been able to participate actively or recently, now take a moment to respond to the staff’s messages regarding your continuing participation in this Working Group; and (2) we propose discussing the three options in the attached document on the Working Group call this Thursday, concerning the scenario where a losing respondent challenges the initial UDRP/URS determination in court, with a view toward seeing whether it will be possible to get group consensus on one of them. We understand that there are additional details regarding these options that are not fully discussed in the document, and on which further consensus will be sought if a specific option has consensus support. We hope that all Working Group members will make every effort to join this final stage of deliberations. Following the community discussion at ICANN60, we will again confirm the level of consensus among our members on each of the proposed final recommendations and report, and send the Final Report to the GNSO Council for its review and, hopefully, approval. Best regards, Philip and Petter

2 1

Letter from Ban Ki-moon to foreign minsters of the United Nations member states
by Paul Tattersfield Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Hi Mary, In the Adobe Chat last week you said you would circulrize a letter refferenced by Brian at Hyderabad 57 from the UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon to foreign ministers of the United Nations member states. If you have a moment please could you send it out before this week's meeting? Many thanks & kind regards, Paul

3 2

FW: Board adopts response to GAC Johannesburg Communique
by Phil Corwin Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

WG Members: Please see below the response of the ICANN Board to the GAC’s Johannesburg advice regarding IGO protections. The efforts of our WG continue to be of high interest to the Board and GAC. Best regards, 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: council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:10 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Board adopts response to GAC Johannesburg Communique Dear All, FYI, the ICANN Board adopted its response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique during its meeting on 23 September (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-09-23-en#1.f) It included the following response in relation to IGO Protections: The Board acknowledges the GAC’s Advice and its concerns. The Board reiterates that as part of a PDP, the Working Group has an obligation to duly consider all inputs received*. The Board notes that the GNSO Council has informed the Board that all public comments and input received by the PDP Working Group, including from the GAC and IGOs, have been extensively discussed by the Working Group. The Board notes, further, that the GNSO Council considers the upcoming ICANN60 meeting to be an opportunity for further discussions among the community. The Board will continue to facilitate these discussions and encourages participation in them by all affected parties. * From the GNSO Operating Procedures: “Public comments received as a result of a public comment forum held in relation to the activities of the WG should be carefully considered and analyzed. In addition, the WG is encouraged to explain their rationale for agreeing or disagreeing with the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these will be addressed in the report of the WG”. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 21 September 2017
by Terri Agnew Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 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, 21 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-21sep17-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-21sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1c7i1io8z3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c47e0a31f3f69096 f768d7bb95741a48dad20fa8cd64c83e67726dbb2599a6a9> https://participate.icann.org/p1c7i1io8z3/ 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 Mason Cole Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman David Maher Petter Rindforth Poncelet Ileleji Apologies: Paul Keating Osvaldo Novoa 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/qAghB> https://community.icann.org/x/qAghB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 21 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 21 September 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_q AghB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ qAghB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YTqlDtsw0tD38e1UShyXR-1FWRY9Vngu9LefcNXCb5Y &s=v53Q8Cc6x8H1pQQzMLO3RTXkeR_86RTJR12_lc0bty0&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YTqlDtsw0tD38e1UShyXR-1FWRY9Vngu9LefcNXCb5Y&s=v5 3Q8Cc6x8H1pQQzMLO3RTXkeR_86RTJR12_lc0bty0&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:Hi there George Kirikos:Hi Petter. How are you today? Petter Rindforth:Fine, and looking forward to our co-operative work in finalizing our recommendations George Kirikos:Welcome Poncelet. Did you know that your surname dot-com is unregistered? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gwhois.org_Ileleji.com- 2Bdns <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gwhois.org_Ileleji.com -2Bdns&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YTqlDtsw0tD38e1UShyXR-1FWRY9Vngu9LefcNXCb5 Y&s=INBFtJHot8f37hevjAifkkExNNhnqnJCq2TJJeTXMrA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=YTqlDtsw0tD38e1UShyXR-1FWRY9Vngu9LefcNXCb5Y&s=IN BFtJHot8f37hevjAifkkExNNhnqnJCq2TJJeTXMrA&e= At under $15/yr at most registrars (eg. GoDaddy, etc.), it might be a great investment for you and your family. George Kirikos:(e.g. personal email using firstname(a)lastname.com <mailto:firstname@lastname.com> , blog, website, etc) George Kirikos:Same for Rindforth.com !! Poncelet Ileleji:Hello All George Kirikos:I'm always amazed when I see unregistered surname dot-coms. Mason Cole:Greetings all. Apologies in advance, but I can stay on the call only until about 45 past the hour. Terri Agnew:Thanks for this information Mason Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Mason and Paul. Philip Corwin:Hello all George Kirikos:Welcome Phil and Jay. Jay Chapman:Hi George -thanks! George Kirikos:Perhaps some of those should be changed to 'Observers'. George Kirikos:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895 (28 participants, but maybe half haven't been active lately) Terri Agnew:Welcome David Maher Paul Tattersfield:Looks like the IGo's prefer the political route Mary Wong:We cannot change a person's status from member to observer, or vice versa, without a specific instruction from him/her. Paul Tattersfield:One wonders if they won't way anything until the end and then sinply object if the working group doesn't give them everything they have asked for Paul Tattersfield:way=say sorry Mary Wong:The Working Group Guidelines requires that the chair(s) continually assess the representativeness and balance of the composition of the Working Group, and as the active participants on this one are few, it's something we will probably need to work on more as we move toward a consensus call. Philip Corwin:Agreed as well Paul Tattersfield:Mary did you have chance to dig out the letter from Ki-moon that Brian referenced at Hyderabad? Mary Wong:Hello Paul, yes I did, actually - apologies for the delay, i will send it right after this call Paul Tattersfield:Brilliant, thank you. Paul Tattersfield:No other forum in the world would allow the IGOs to initiate an action and then assert immunity against a counter suit George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote George Kirikos:https://archive.icann.org/en/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm Poncelet Ileleji:Thanks for Sharing George Mary Wong:There is no voting in Working Groups. George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_refe rendum,_2005 Mary Wong:It is a consensus call, and the chairs have the discretion as to when to make that call and in what format. George Kirikos:That's your opinion, Petter. However, in my view, Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 etc are still on the table, right? George Kirikos:Or, are you saying this is the only option? Mason Cole:All, I must depart sooner than expected. Have a successful discussion. George Kirikos:My hand is a new one. Paul Tattersfield:Will there be an opportunity to advocate for each of the final choices of options are settled prior to any consensus call? Jay Chapman:Is it also still possible that we do not provide any option at all? Mary Wong:@Paul, the idea is for the Working Group to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of each option rather than to advocate for any particular one. Poncelet Ileleji:Am thinking like wise too George Kirikos:Thanks, Phil. That was my understanding, that all the options are still on the table. But, the language of this document should be revised accordingly, to not call it "the WG agreed", etc. Jay Chapman:10-4. thanks for clarifying, Mary and Phil George Kirikos:I'm calling this an "Option 7", i.e. an attempt to refine Option 2 with 3+6 added. Mary Wong:@George, the email is referring to provsional agreement on the option under discussion, not on the entirety of all teh options George Kirikos:i.e. Option 7 is an attempt to gain a broad consensus, to appeal to those who prefer Option #1. Paul Tattersfield:I think there are errors in Prof. Swaine reasonsing that can be easily demonstrated, and much of the preliminary WG report is premised on his reasoning, as such it doens't articulate well the most equitable options Mary Wong:Note also that the impact analysis that we tried to do previously is part of the exercise of evaluating which option is likely to be the most appropriate, and implementable, policy recommendation. Jay Chapman:Mary, this is how I understood Steve's email as well. My response on the list was to simply be clear on the bigger picture Mary Wong:Thank you, Jay, understood! Paul Tattersfield:during? Mary Wong:@Petter, yes - one main premise here is that both parties must voluntarily agree to arbitrate (though of course the timing and mechanism for this agreement is TBD). Paul Tattersfield:do the IGO's and the registrants already have that option Mary? Mary Wong:@Paul T, I suppose they do (in the way that all parties to any dispute does); but in terms of it being expressly accommodated or specified in the current ICANN policies and processes, then, no. Paul Tattersfield:so can we realitically expect the IGOs to support such an option? Or would it be more likely they will simply say no to eveything that isn't demanded/requested [depending on your pov] by the IGO Small Group? George Kirikos:If you look at the "placeholder" text for Rec #3, it's basically echoing the draft "option #7" (i.e. no mention of Option #1, Option #2, Option #3, Option #4, Option #6, etc.). George Kirikos:Which seems at odds with the prior discussion that all the other options are still on the table, etc. Mary Wong:@GEorge, yes - as noted, it is just a placeholder. We already have all the other options listed in a different document, so this is just a placeholder to capture the current discussions. George Kirikos:We've not fully discussed how an arbitration provider would even be selected. i.e. would there be a fixed one for all disputes, or could the complainants/respondents have one selected that resides in the jurisdiction of the Mutual Jurisdiction (e.g. a Canadian arbitration provider, for a Canadian dispute, rather than having NAF or ICC or some other arbitration provider do them all). George Kirikos:i.e. there's too much of a "skeleton" here, without many of the details. Paul Tattersfield:exactly george - it needs far more work George Kirikos:i.e. many of the details of Option #2 (or #7 as revised) haven't been fleshed out yet. Mary Wong:@George, this is intended to be the actual recommendations text - with the details included in a separate part of the report. Mary Wong:For this point, the details will be based on Paul Keating's (I think) list of points to consider for arbitration, as further discussed by the Working Group. Mary Wong:This is nowhere close to the full text of the report - just the list of recommendations with further text to explain them. George Kirikos:i.e. the "devil is in the details". I might be able to back Option #7, if Option #6 was fully incorporated, etc., but it depends on the exact text. George Kirikos:@Mary: right, we still need to discuss those....i.e. there hasn't been a fully fleshed out proposal. George Kirikos:i.e. Option #1 is a complete proposal (pretty easy for that one) George Kirikos:Option #2 (or Option #7) still haven't been fleshed out. George Kirikos:Option #4 is a complete proposal (albeit it depends on Option #2 being fleshed out, since it refers to it). George Kirikos:Option #6, for example, doesn't require mutual consent -- it tells the registrar to simply keep the domain name locked/unchanged, pending the in rem lawsuit that was filed (as opposed to just keeping the status quo for in personam). George Kirikos:Option #2 can't be NAF, for example. George Kirikos:NAF is so heavily criticized. George Kirikos:People file in court just to avoid NAF. George Kirikos:Arbitration provider can be appointed by the court, for example. George Kirikos:Since, we only get to this option if a *court* finds for immunity. Paul Tattersfield:George a 'complete porposal' is only a starting point, the report needs to articulate clearly the reasoning and porcess of getting to the proposal because very few people will have even tried nevermnind have managed to get their mind around the principles behind the proposals Poncelet Ileleji:+1 George Kirikos:Right, Paul. Because, after this PDP, there would be an "implementation working group", and if we didn't give the correct guidance, they could then interpret our intent incorrectly. George Kirikos:And they could implement things that we'd find horrifying. Paul Tattersfield:exactly George Kirikos:We need to be precise, to not give the IGOs (who might participate in an implementation working group) or others a way to twist things, to the disadvantage of registrants. Mary Wong:FYI that the Implementation Review Team that's formed normally comprises mostly Working Group members, precisely to ensure that the implementation path reflects the intent of the policy recommendations. Mary Wong:While those teams are run by our operational colleagues, Policy staff that supported the PDP are part of the team as advisers for the same purpose. George Kirikos:hehe I know, Mary....more work ahead (unless we go for Option #1, which is easy to implement). Mary Wong:Sorry, yes, that is correct, George Paul Tattersfield:I think we should reach out again if the IGO's choose not to participate that is their decision Paul Tattersfield:Arbitration isn't going to be cheap they'll complain George Kirikos:Even tha GAC had a participant in this PDP for a while (the gentleman from Jamaica, I think? Can't remember his name), but they've not done much in this PDP. George Kirikos:Gary something, I think. George Kirikos:Gary Campbell, found it. Paul Tattersfield:the verbal feedback of meeting has it's place but written comments often prove to be more substantive Mary Wong:@Paul T, that may be a very good reason to run a public comment period overlapping with ICANN60 George Kirikos:The IGOs are really just 2 people, it seems, Brian Beckham and Jonathan Passaro. Those were the main commenters. George Kirikos:(others just echoed their ideas) Mary Wong:Note - the public comment period will have to be BEFORE the final report is sent to the GNSO Council George Kirikos:It could be a way of showing we've bent over backwards, by having another comment period. Paul Tattersfield:Very true George those two people ssem to have a lot of influence and certainly the submissions to this working group from one of them have been troublingly poor Paul Tattersfield:I would like to see public comment on option #1 and the new option #2 Mary Wong:As for duration of this optional public comment period - the GNSO rules say "not less than 21 days" so Phil's suggestion of a 21-day period would work Mary Wong:@Paul T, that can be specifically called out for sure Jay Chapman: Thanks, all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye

1 0

Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 21 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 16:00 UTC on 21 September. Apologies for the late delivery. Roll call/updates to SOI Review of provisional agreements for Recommendation 4 options (please see attached email) Summary and review of all current WG recommendations Discussion about possible additional public comment period AOB 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/ 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/

3 2

Options Related to Recommendation 4: Provisional Agreements and Request for Response
by Steve Chan Sept. 20, 2017

Sept. 20, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find an email sent on behalf and at the request of the WG co-chairs. On the 14 September WG call, in further discussing the options related to Recommendation 4, we reviewed an updated diagram (attached) and considered the two specific questions below. On the call, the WG reached provisional agreement as follows. Should limitation of the court review or arbitration to disposition of the domain name require mutual agreement of the Respondent and IGO, or should we recommend that limitation for one or both appeal forums? If this WG were to recommend that court review be limited to ownership of the domain name, it appears unlikely that ICANN policy would prevent a court of mutual jurisdiction from exploring all remedies that it has access to. However, parties could be encouraged or at least be made aware that judicial appeals could be limited to ownership of the domain name. We anticipate that the Respondent, by forgoing its ability to seek monetary damages or injunctive relief, could reasonably expect that the IGO (complainant) would forgo its ability to assert a defense of judicial immunity. Arbitration could be limited to the disposition of the domain name in recognition that this option, coming after an IGO’s successful assertion of an immunity defense, provides an avenue of additional appeal that is unavailable to Respondents at present; as well as that an arbitration body has little or no power to enforce a money judgment or injunction against an IGO. Should the Respondent be permitted to choose to go directly to arbitration rather than judicial appeal if it wishes to? The WG agreed that respondents should be allowed to file an arbitration action after the UDRP/URS is concluded in the IGO’s favor if it wishes to avoid the costs and lengths of a judicial appeal. However, the WG also discussed and is now posing the following questions: In addition to the previous allowance, should respondents also be permitted to file an arbitration action before or during the pendency (pre-decision) of a UDRP? Should such pre-decision filing require mutual agreement of the IGO complainant? The co-chairs encourage all WG members, especially those who do not participate on the WG calls on a regular basis, to provide their feedback and response to the specific questions above. We hope and anticipate completing the Final Report prior to ICANN60 and therefore, your feedback is critical in shaping this WG’s final recommendations. 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/

3 2

FW: ICANN Board Public Meetings on September 22 & 23
by Phil Corwin Sept. 19, 2017

Sept. 19, 2017

WG members-please note that on 9/22 ICANN's Board will be discussing the GAC's Johannesburg Communique, part of which discusses our issue. From: council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:45 PM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: [council] ICANN Board Public Meetings on September 22 & 23 I just became aware of this, and don't believe that Councilors were sent a note on it. Some may wish to monitor--- https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-13-en ICANN Board to Hold Public Session and Board Meeting During Montevideo Workshop LOS ANGELES - 13 September 2017 - The ICANN Board will be holding one public session and a Board Meeting during its upcoming workshop in Montevideo, Uruguay, which will be taking place from 20-23 September, 2017. The agenda of the sessions is provided below. Date Time (UTC) Session 22 September 13:30 - 14:30 Discussion on how Board responds to the GAC Advice in its ICANN59 Johannesburg Communiqué 23 September 12:00 - 13:00 Public Board Meeting The sessions will be in English only. The format for each will be a listen-only session via Adobe Connect. Adobe Connect Link: https://participate.icann.org/opencommunity/ Participant Code: 5542211258 Additional access numbers: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=5542211258&num=1-605-… For more information about the Montevideo workshop and other upcoming ICANN Board meetings, please go to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2017-board-meetings. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address - a name or a number - into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. Details 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

1 0

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 14 September 2017
by Julie Bisland Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 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, 14 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-14sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8qeyo3hc75/<https://participate.icann.org/p8qeyo3hc75/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=00c812ada3468bdb…> 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 Mason Cole Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman David Maher Osvaldo Novoa Apologies: Petter Rindforth Paul Keating ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/hSkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 14 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Julie Bisland:hello George! George Kirikos:Hi Julie. George Kirikos:If I'm the only PDP participant in attendance today, it'll be easier to form a final consensus. :-) George Kirikos:Hi Mason & Phil. Mason Cole:Greetings all Philip Corwin:Hello all. Petter has a conflict and won't be joining today. Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Paul Tattersfield:its better Paul Tattersfield:it's Mary Wong:We have pasted feedback received from Paul Keating via email to this revised diagram in the Notes pod on the right. Julie Bisland:Welcome Osvaldo Novoa Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Welcome Osvaldo. George Kirikos:It would be permissible to appeal to higher courts. Paul Tattersfield:Do we also have to define the provider(s), the governing law and the rules or arbitration? Julie Bisland:Welcome Jay Chapman Jay Chapman:Forgive my being late George Kirikos:Welcome Jay. Jay Chapman:Thanks, George George Kirikos:2nd question is easier. George Kirikos:+1 Phil Steve Chan:There is a callout (highlighted in blue) on the chart, noting where this option is possibly envisioned. George Kirikos:Conceivably it can be for the box above that, right. George Kirikos:In addition to the current box, not to replace it. George Kirikos:Perhaps send it to the mailing list, for further thinking. Paul Tattersfield:George's solution seems more elegant George Kirikos:It would just be another option, though, Paul. i.e. some might find it better to wait until the UDRP panel has weighed in. Paul Tattersfield:Paul K wanted it to be for all UDRPs Paul Tattersfield:they would have to close the judical rigts if it went to arbitration George Kirikos:I personally wouldn't expect to make that choice for myself, but it might be an option for someone else, depending on the circumstances. George Kirikos:That might have been a typo. George Kirikos:(by Paul K) George Kirikos:We'd not be able to change the arbitration for all respondents (that's something the RPM PDP might be able to do, but beyond our scope). George Kirikos:IGO can't raise immunity defence in an "in rem" case, since they're not actually being sued. (i.e. that's why Option 6 is so interesting). Jay Chapman:Paul's concern there is my greater concern with creating any type of arbitration appeal - other groups may be encouraged to seek their own appeal process Mary Wong:Staff agrees that recommending arbitration is likely beyond the PDP scope. George Kirikos:Very true, Jay. Paul Tattersfield:If an arbitration and Judical options were both open to a registrant could try the arbitration if that was lost he could then try the judical route Mary Wong:Yes, sorry for not being clearer George Kirikos:@Paul: But the idea of going to arbitration is to give up the right to access the court. Mary Wong:@Paul T, the arbitration would be binding. Mary Wong:(taking off staff hat) I'm not a public international law expert but I would think that the IGO will, as a rule, still be able to assert jurisdictional immunity as it is still a party to the dispute - unless perhaps the policy requires that agrement to this limited scope amounts to a waiver of immunity. George Kirikos:Default judgement. Jay Chapman:agree Phil George Kirikos:Right, Phil. Jay Chapman:To be clear - not all of us have tentatively agreed to an arbitration option. Still listening though George Kirikos:+1 Jay :) Paul Tattersfield:Good poin Jay I think we're only exploring if alternatives are workable George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/accountants/accounta… (5.2) Mason Cole:Would love to share, George, but out of my remit. I'd have to defer to our legal team, and you're right, can't comment on .web. George Kirikos:Right, don't want to force any comment....just curious if the ICC rules seemed "fair". George Kirikos:(since those are what ICANN and registry operators have appeared to agree to, or were compelled to agree to) Paul Tattersfield:@Mary did you have chance to find the Ki-moon letter? Steve Chan:@Paul, Mary stepped away to another meeting, even if it looks like she's present. I'll follow up with her. George Kirikos:I think there was an arbitration via ICC, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… George Kirikos:OpenTLD v. ICANN George Kirikos:Also Employ Media v. ICANN Paul Tattersfield:Thanks Steve appreciated Jay Chapman:Thanks, all. Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you, bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. Have a great day. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks all bye

1 0

Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 14 September
by Steve Chan Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 16:00 UTC on 14 September. Roll call/updates to SOI Review of Updated Recommendation 4 Options Diagram and Discussion of Questions Below: Should limitation of the court review or arbitration to disposition of the domain name require mutual agreement of the registrant and IGO, or should we recommend that limitation for one or both appeal forums? Should the registrant be permitted to choose to go directly to arbitration rather than judicial appeal if it wishes to? AOB For agenda item 2, please find an updated diagram, that is intended to take into account discussions from the previous WG meeting. 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/

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 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, 07 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-07sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6ylzspef6r/ 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 Osvaldo Novoa David Maher Apologies: Mason Cole ICANN staff: Mary Wong Berry Cobb Dennis Chang Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/pgghB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 07 September 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 07 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there George and Petter!! George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. Petter Rindforth:Hi there! George Kirikos:Hi Petter. Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Osvaldo, welcome! George Kirikos:Hi Osvaldo. George Kirikos:Might be wise to send out a '2 minute warning' email? Michelle DeSmyter:absolutely George Kirikos:There's probably a way to automate that, so the reminders get send out a week before the call, a day before, and 5 minutes before. :-) Philip Corwin:dialing in/on hold George Kirikos:Welcome Phil and PaulT. Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone George Kirikos:So, Jay can be added to the "audio only" in the top right pod. George Kirikos:You can tell how they've been lobbied, by the evolution of that advice. George Kirikos:e.g. "no additional protections" in 2012! George Kirikos:+1 Petter. They didn't follow through with that "working with". Mary Wong:Petter and Phil did have a meeting with the GAC leadership in Buenos Aires in June 2015, though. Paul Tattersfield:There seems to be a change of direction after during Hydrabad 2016 after IGO Small Group input Philip Corwin:@Mary--yes it was an early morning "breakfast meeting" -- with no breakfast, -- and NO Coffee! ;-) Mary Wong:@Phil, yeah, I wish I'd known beforehand about the lack of facilities so I could have brought you all some coffee from downstairs! Jay Chapman:Thanks, George, I'm still on the phone, but now arrived and have joined here on AC Paul Tattersfield:Brian referenced a letter at Hyderabad from the UN Secretary Ben Ki-Moon to foreign ministers of the United member States could we as a working group ask for a copy of that latter please? George Kirikos:Great, Jay. Welcome. Mary Wong:@Paul, I think we may have circulated that previously but we'll be happy to (re)circulate. Paul Tattersfield:Thank you Mary that would be very helpful George Kirikos:Not to change the 3-prongs, right. Mary Wong:One thing the group probably should do, as we begin discussions of text for a Final Report, is to take a look at the UDRP and URS policy language just to be sure. George Kirikos:Agrees to arbitration, only in the event they win on immunity in court. Mary Wong:At the filing stage, the IGO will be asked to agree to arbitration (in the limited circumstance per Rec 4). It will have the option also to elect for limited jurisdiction (court to rule only on domain ownership). Mary Wong:@George, yes - conditioned on the criteria the WG has already discussed. George Kirikos:Under what circumstances would an IGO say "NO" to the "limited scope of court action"? George Kirikos:i.e. it seems they would *always* say "YES", because it's a more limited waiver than the existing waiver. Mary Wong:Staff is happy to follow up/respond to Phil's observations as well Mary Wong:May we explain? George Kirikos:This is basically Option #3, for that box. George Kirikos:Diamond, even. Paul Tattersfield:The mutual jurisdiction clause is only a waiver of jurisidictional immunity, they have not given a waiver of immunity from ececution they can iwaive mmunity from execution when ever they choose George Kirikos:Is Phil's a new hand? Maybe Mary should speak, before we forget this point? Paul Tattersfield:bad typo sorry Philip Corwin:Yes, I had a quick response--but Mary goes first Paul Tattersfield:corrected The mutual jurisdiction clause is only a waiver of jurisidictional immunity, they have not given a waiver of immunity from ececution they can assert mmunity from execution when ver they choose George Kirikos:Same point as before --- it seems to me that under those circumstances, Registrant will always say "Yes" to arbitration if the IGO wins on immunity. George Kirikos:i.e. it's codifying "option #2", without having to complicate the chart by pretending there are real choices. One choice always dominates in those boxes. George Kirikos:It's difficult, because a lawsuit might even be filed before making any response to the UDRP. George Kirikos:Right, Mary --- the right hand side is Option #3 or Option #6. Mary Wong:@George, exactly George Kirikos:Refusal to participate = default decision Mary Wong:@Phil, I can respond to that point you just raised George Kirikos:Same as if there's a refusal to participate in the court case. George Kirikos:Since these are all de novo. Philip Corwin:Agree that the risk of an IGO participating in a final scenario arbitration is slim, but we should still adddress since it is not zero Philip Corwin:Thanks for this clarification, Mary Philip Corwin:To clairify, risk of of an IGO's refusal is slim Mary Wong:@Petter, yes taht is the idea too - since MJ is dealt with in the Rules, staff thought the same treatment can be given to the arbitration agreement Mary Wong:Yes Mary Wong:@George, that was shorthand to fit in the box :) Mary Wong:@George, if the registrant goes to court, then nothing on this flow chart will apply, right? George Kirikos:@Mary: it depends, e.g. if the IGO has agreed to quasi in remd, then that might affect things differently. George Kirikos:*quasi in rem. George Kirikos:Or, there's no UDRP decision that "stands". George Kirikos:(if panel hasn't made a decision) Mary Wong:We were avoiding specific or complex legal doctrines - the "limited scope" reference is really, in plain English, that the IGO agrees that a court action will be limited only to a decision on the ownership and disposition of the domain(s) in dispute. George Kirikos:Right, if we can incorporate Options #3, and #6 into Option #2, *and* are able to get a full consensus, then that might be acceptable. George Kirikos:(even elements of option #4, re: record keeping, and review after certain number of cases, etc.) George Kirikos:I took it to a court action. :-) Mary Wong:@George, on that last point, if it helps, the GNSO rules now require that PDP recommendations include (where practicable) notes on periodic review and suggested metrics for such. George Kirikos:(before it was decided) George Kirikos:So did others. George Kirikos:@Mary: right, we just need to make sure that the data is collected (i.e. all the relevant cases, etc.), to make that review easier (e.g. see the problems in the RPM PDP, cough cough!) Philip Corwin:I think we can certainly discuss including in the Final report a recommendation that the results of whatever we recommend be reviewed in the future, either after the passage of a set amount of time or a set number of arbitrations (whichever comes first) George Kirikos:i.e. data is collected automatically as part of the policy. Paul Tattersfield:set number of arbitrations lol George Kirikos:@PaulT: handles the scenario where there are suddenly hundreds of IGO cases, due to some loophole they identify, or bad arbitrations. Mary Wong:Just a cautionary note that the metric(s) should be something that doesn't depend on self-reporting, but can be collected objectively e.g. from providers. Philip Corwin:Providers will know when a UDRP decision has been stayed because a concurrent or post-decision judicial action has been filed George Kirikos:@Mary: yes, the full cases (i.e. can't be secret/private arbitrations; would need to be able to have others view the cases, both decisions and arguments of the sides, like open justice in the USA, or the open court principle in Canada) Paul Tattersfield:@Mary in that scenario we have failed in that we have done more damage than leaving the status quo Philip Corwin:very hard to get registrars to comply with data requests Paul Tattersfield:sorry @George Mary Wong:The text piece is really just an explanation of the flow chart, with additional background from past discussions George Kirikos:Yes, I can see it. Osvaldo Novoa:I can see it George Kirikos:Plus it went out by email earlier, so there's that PDF. George Kirikos:Yes, our final report can't give out "new options" -- we have to pick something. Mary Wong:THe most recent GAC advice is on Pages 5 (bottom) and 6 Paul Tattersfield:All that has happened is the IGO's have lobbied the GAC to support their position instead of participating in this working group Paul Tattersfield:the change in the GAC position has evolved almost in parrallel to thiw WG Mary Wong:Note that the IGO Small Group was formed around the time of the Los Angeles Communique (Oct 2014) George Kirikos:Having the court case only be about the fate of the domain name would substantially narrow the issues in dispute. George Kirikos:That narrowing of the issues should result in lower costs for all parties. George Kirikos:We've focused on the UDRP, but this would also need to be done for the URS, I suppose? Paul Tattersfield:turns up in court so he can hand over his illicit proceeds Mary Wong:@George, yes Paul Tattersfield:Some of those have only a handful members some have no immunity rights George Kirikos:There was nothing special about the GAC list, though. Philip Corwin:The only thing "special" abut the GAC list is that the GAC has adopted it and therefore would not be expected to object to its use as a basis for defining IGOs. Whether we should reference or adopt it is a separate issue. Philip Corwin:Again, I'm for avoiding a definition if at all possible Mary Wong:I suppose we can presume that those on the GAC list can be considered IGOs, but it's only an inclusive, not exhaustive, list? Paul Tattersfield:Same for the Pacific Salmon IGO, same for the EU all IGO's are regional to some extent the UN probably has the most members (General Convention) Paul Tattersfield:It also depends on the articles of eacy IGO George Kirikos:+1 Paul. George Kirikos:e.g. and how each nation treats that IGO (in Canada, that depends on various Orders in Council, I believe). George Kirikos:(via the Federal Government) Mary Wong:The question isn't whether a country recognizes, or is a member of, an IGO, though, is it? It's more fundamental - i,e, is the org created by treaty by govts? Paul Tattersfield:There are also many other worthy organizations who are not IGOs but do equally good works George Kirikos:@Mary: Right, by a court in a certain nation will not recognize the immunity of some valid IGOs, because it's not a recognied IGO in that country. Mary Wong:Right, that goes to immunity (it may be a real IGO but the court doesn't recognize it is immune), not to its factual status as IGO. George Kirikos:So, they might have 'immunity' against some domain name owners (in some nations), but not others. George Kirikos:Agreed, Mary. George Kirikos:Might need to append the word limits, in these cases. George Kirikos:(although, there aren't limits for Appendices) Paul Tattersfield:also where the registrar is located as well as th e registrant George Kirikos:Might need to amend the time limits. George Kirikos:Because, it's a complex question for a registrant to make those decisions whether it believes it is a real IGO, or what the scope of that IGO's rights are in that country. George Kirikos:(i.e. re: immunity) George Kirikos:IGOs, and complainants in general, have unlimited time to prepare their complaints. Respondents (domain owners) are under the gun, with only 20 days to respond. Philip Corwin:Yes, we can look at some modest extension of the time limits given the extra decision point for the registrant George Kirikos:Have staff started making amendments to the draft final report where we've already come to consensus? (i.e. all the other stuff, except this narrow point) Philip Corwin:NO--last week of October is start of ICANN 60/not November George Kirikos:i.e. changing Article 6ter stuff, etc? George Kirikos:(i.e. softening that recommendation, and a few other places where we agreed to make changes) Mary Wong:Did I say November? SOrry, I meant last week of October (as Phil noted) Mary Wong:@George, yes we have started Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye Philip Corwin:Yes, you said Nov George Kirikos:Bye everyone.

1 0

Document for discussion (Re: Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 7 September)
by Mary Wong Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Dear all, For our call coming up shortly, and as noted for Agenda Item #2 below, please find attached a process flow diagram for discussion on the call, along with a short explanatory note. Please note that this example is a staff draft that we prepared at the co-chairs’ request, to try to develop a possible proposal that would combine Option 2 (arbitration) with workable elements from some of the other Options that have been discussed by the Working Group. As such, this is not a proposal that the co-chairs have had the chance to fully review. Phil and Petter’s initial feedback reflect some concerns they have that they will outline more fully on the call. Essentially, they would like to reduce and minimize the decision points for all parties, accomplish as much as possible via Rules rather than Policy amendments, and overall simplify the proposal to make it more comprehensible to registrants and IGOs, as well as Council and the Board when they review a Final Report. We apologize for the lateness of this distribution, as the co-chairs and staff have been discussing various ways in which we may be able to prepare a proposal or examples for moving forward. Please be assured that we will explain the process flow in detail on the call, and you will have time to consider and discuss it both on and after the call. Thank you. Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 19:20 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 7 September Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for our Working Group call scheduled for 1600 UTC on 7 September: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Co-Chairs' presentation and proposal relating to arbitration and the various options discussed in the context of IGO jurisdictional immunity 3. Review of relevant GAC advice on arbitration 4. Next steps - (a) moving toward consensus and a final recommendation on this topic; (b) decision on publication of draft Final Report for public comment Please note that the co-chairs and staff are working to circulate a document relating to Agenda Item #2 before the call. For Agenda Item #3, you may wish to refer to the attached compilation of GAC advice on IGO protections, focusing in particular on Pages 5-6 which contain the most recent GAC advice on this topic (from ICANN58 and ICANN59). Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 7 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for our Working Group call scheduled for 1600 UTC on 7 September: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Co-Chairs' presentation and proposal relating to arbitration and the various options discussed in the context of IGO jurisdictional immunity 3. Review of relevant GAC advice on arbitration 4. Next steps - (a) moving toward consensus and a final recommendation on this topic; (b) decision on publication of draft Final Report for public comment Please note that the co-chairs and staff are working to circulate a document relating to Agenda Item #2 before the call. For Agenda Item #3, you may wish to refer to the attached compilation of GAC advice on IGO protections, focusing in particular on Pages 5-6 which contain the most recent GAC advice on this topic (from ICANN58 and ICANN59). Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0