March 2018 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG
by Susan Kawaguchi April 4, 2018

April 4, 2018

Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable. As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is: · Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options. · ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session. · The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). · Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge. · Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. · While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message. Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency

4 4

Additional office hours scheduled with Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group
by Mary Wong March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Thank you to those members who took the time to speak with Susan (the GNSO Council liaison to our Working Group) during the repurposed office hour slots at ICANN61. In order to permit more Working Group members to speak with Susan, staff has created the following Doodle poll for timeslots this coming Wednesday 28 March, between 1800-2000 UTC: https://doodle.com/poll/fmqusr2y7vp87g6n. If you have not yet had the chance to speak directly to Susan and wish to do so, please sign up for one of the available slots. If none of them work for you, please let staff know and we will try to arrange for another time when Susan is available. As Susan noted in her initial email (below), following completion of the various office hour sessions, she will prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place with a view toward assisting the group in moving forward with our final discussions. Thanks and cheers Mary and Steve From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 16:32 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> Subject: PLEASE READ: IGO-INGO Curative Rights session at ICANN61 Dear Working Group members, Following on Susan’s email (below), please note that the ICANN61 session for our Working Group – scheduled for Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time – will be repurposed as office hours, for any Working Group member (either present on site in San Juan or remotely) to meet with Susan, to discuss your views on the IGO jurisdictional immunity issue (including the six options currently under consideration). To facilitate the office hours, and if you are interested in meeting with Susan, please be so kind as to fill out this Doodle poll to indicate which 10-minute slot you prefer: https://doodle.com/poll/ikwa9hp8cd7sar4h. If you will not be physically here but nevertheless wish to meet with Susan, please email me or Steve privately to provide us with a phone number that Susan can reach you at, for your preferred 10-minute slot. As Susan has noted, additional office hours can be scheduled after ICANN61 to accommodate those Working Group members who are not available during the Wednesday time frame. Thank you. Cheers Mary & Steve From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 14:37 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable. As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is: • Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options. • ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session. • The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). • Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge. • Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. • While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message. Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency

1 0

Please share: Multistakeholder Ethos Award Nomination Process Extended
by Nathalie Peregrine March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-20-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Nominations Close 28 March 2018 Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…> ICANN is pleased to remind community members that the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award has been extended until 28 March 2018. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email at ethosaward2018(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2018@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2018 at ICANN62 Panama City. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…>

1 0

PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Nathalie Peregrine March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear all, Due to security difficulties, (see Goran’s blog here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>) the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the following steps we encourage you to follow: 1. TO JOIN THE AUDIO * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask questions or comment over the telephone. Dial in details for open GNSO sessions can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/3wC8B 1. TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: https://61.schedule.icann.org/ * Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on demand 1. ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT * These will be handed via live management of email comments and questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of meeting room email addresses here: https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350 We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by searching for “ICANN61” in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to email us at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join and your preferred contact number. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Board-GAC Dialogue on IGOs
by Corwin, Philip March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair. The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below. I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG. >>MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE. SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO... SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN. SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? THANK YOU. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL. >>MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED. THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT. IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM. THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY. JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY....TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE. THANK YOU. >>WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT. SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS. THANK YOU. (Emphasis added) Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

3 5

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: IGO-INGO Curative Rights session at ICANN61
by Paul Keating March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

Mary, I would lie to speak with Susan. I am available on BCN time 11am 7pm. My personal preference is for Option #1 *disregard the UDRP finding PENDING the determination fo the PDS via Option 4. In other words I would prefer the that THIS WG confirm that Option ! Is the recommendation of this WG but that the matter be formally referred and that the proffered suggestion be implemented in the interim. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:32 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: IGO-INGO Curative Rights session at ICANN61 > Dear Working Group members, > > Following on Susan¹s email (below), please note that the ICANN61 session for > our Working Group scheduled for Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto > Rico time will be repurposed as office hours, for any Working Group member > (either present on site in San Juan or remotely) to meet with Susan, to > discuss your views on the IGO jurisdictional immunity issue (including the six > options currently under consideration). > > To facilitate the office hours, and if you are interested in meeting with > Susan, please be so kind as to fill out this Doodle poll to indicate which > 10-minute slot you prefer: https://doodle.com/poll/ikwa9hp8cd7sar4h. If you > will not be physically here but nevertheless wish to meet with Susan, please > email me or Steve privately to provide us with a phone number that Susan can > reach you at, for your preferred 10-minute slot. > > As Susan has noted, additional office hours can be scheduled after ICANN61 to > accommodate those Working Group members who are not available during the > Wednesday time frame. > > Thank you. > > Cheers > Mary & Steve > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> > Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 14:37 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, > Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" > <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a > recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and > support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path > forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on > the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO > jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS > proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. > > You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man > Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather¹s request) and accompanying Annex. I > will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to > whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us > all to see if the approach may be workable. > > As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on > Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach > also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the > recommendation is: > > · Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, > as has been the Working Group¹s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 > session will be run as a form of ³open office hours², where any and all > Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the > topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the > six options. > > · ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information > and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the > session. > > · The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views > (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively > recently to try to break an impasse in that group). > > · Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours > and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to > provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold > additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 > this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference > phone bridge. > > · Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff > assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that > took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of > consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. > > · While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this > iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in > the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. > > > Thank you and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to > provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural > path forward noted in this message. > > Susan Kawaguchi > Councilor for the Business Constituency > > > _______________________________________________ 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

PLEASE READ: IGO-INGO Curative Rights session at ICANN61
by Mary Wong March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Following on Susan’s email (below), please note that the ICANN61 session for our Working Group – scheduled for Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time – will be repurposed as office hours, for any Working Group member (either present on site in San Juan or remotely) to meet with Susan, to discuss your views on the IGO jurisdictional immunity issue (including the six options currently under consideration). To facilitate the office hours, and if you are interested in meeting with Susan, please be so kind as to fill out this Doodle poll to indicate which 10-minute slot you prefer: https://doodle.com/poll/ikwa9hp8cd7sar4h. If you will not be physically here but nevertheless wish to meet with Susan, please email me or Steve privately to provide us with a phone number that Susan can reach you at, for your preferred 10-minute slot. As Susan has noted, additional office hours can be scheduled after ICANN61 to accommodate those Working Group members who are not available during the Wednesday time frame. Thank you. Cheers Mary & Steve From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 14:37 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable. As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is: • Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options. • ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session. • The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). • Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge. • Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. • While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message. Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency

1 0