April 2018 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo
by Mary Wong June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Dear Paul and everyone, Staff is taking the liberty here of addressing your specific question about Professor Swaine’s memo, including your concern that it may have analyzed a situation where it is not the IGO that commences proceedings but rather is the subject of proceedings against it by a trademark owner. We hope the following extracts from the memo will be useful in clarifying the basis on which Professor Swaine gave his opinion. * In his memo, Professor Swaine notes that he “focuses on the most likely scenario: that in which an IGO, possessing rights in a name, abbreviation, emblem or the like arising under the Paris Convention … has complained and prevailed before an administrative panel in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”) proceedings against a domain-name registrant—resulting in an order of cancellation or transfer to which the losing registrant objects by commencing a judicial action … “ (see Page 77 of the Working Group’s Initial Report, at Annex G). * He notes that “how matters unfold from that point [following the registrant’s filing suit] will depend on national law” (Page 81, Annex G) as to the question, “whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction—its immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is that it would not … The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction would likely establish such a waiver, as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts. The overall answer, then, is contingent. If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity from judicial process; in the status quo, however, it likely would not. Equitable considerations might influence any judicial analysis” (Page 78, Annex G). * Concluding that “In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause means that participating IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process, notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be entitled. This will loom largest in cases in which the IGO is the complainant and benefited from an initial panel decision in its favor, such that the decision to resort to judicial proceedings against the IGO—and the risks that creates for adverse results—is made by the private party” (Page 82, Annex G), Professor Swaine focuses the remainder of his memo on this scenario. * As part of his analysis, Professor Swaine also proposed a number of alternative policy proposals for the Working Group’s consideration, including possibly amending the Mutual Jurisdiction clause or arbitration. These were noted and discussed on several Working Group calls in late 2016, prior to the issuance of the Initial Report in January 2017. While the above summary cannot reflect the entirety or depth of Professor Swaine’s advice, staff thought it might be helpful to recall these points given the question raised by Paul. The full memo was attached to the Initial Report as Annex G: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:49 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Cc: "haforrestesq(a)gmail.com" <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear Philip, In your reply to George Kirikos you stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” Thank you that is helpful. When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a domain name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group that this scenario was not within the working group’s charter. Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant to the working group’s final report. I don’t doubt it was expensive and interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you reply showing how it could be in any way considered relevant? Yours sincerely, Paul On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research. I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3…> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>; Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar; haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear Philip, OK lets settle this once and for all: Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do...... If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering. Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: For the record, and in regard to this – The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions. Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3…> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log[community.icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records[communi…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&…> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with > everyone. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary & Steve > > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong > <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > > > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. > > > > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. > > > > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be > made to support our call. > > > > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group > on this challenging policy area. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Susan Kawaguchi > > Councilor for the Business Constituency > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

2 6

Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from the Liaison (was Re: GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group))
by George Kirikos April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Hi folks, Attached is a response to the Summary Report prepared by the Liaison, listing my concerns with it (which I've previously attempted to bring to the attention of Ms. Kawaguchi and Ms. Forrest, repeatedly and to no avail). I understand that the Summary Report will be presented to GNSO Council later today (in 4 hours) as part of an "update" to them, thus I wanted to formalize these concerns before that call, so they're on the record. I carefully read the latest email to the mailing list of an hour ago (sent on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi), https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html in the hopes that it would have addressed my concern. Had it done so, I would happiley deleted my document. But I did not see anything that caused me to modify the response. In particular, there was no "misunderstanding" -- I read what was in the actual Summary Report itself and understood its implications (see the response with the list of concerns). There's still no revised strawman. There were no scheduled deliberations for this week (i.e. today) or any planned in the future. Indeed, today's email creates a brand-new artificial deadline for our work, once again making things up as they go along. The Summary Report hasn't been withdrawn, or seen its errors fixed (e.g. clear errors in arithmetic). Instead, concerns are delegitimized by a sweeping statement that the report was "misunderstood." We deserve better than this. I hope these concerns are taken seriously, so we can move forward and bring this PDP to a successful conclusion, with a final report that is in accordance with the long established working group guidelines and procedures. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with > everyone. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary & Steve > > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 > 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> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > > > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. > > > > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. > > > > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be > made to support our call. > > > > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group > on this challenging policy area. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > 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

Message from Susan Kawaguchi (GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP Working Group)
by Mary Wong April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see the email message below, which staff is sending on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, the GNSO Council liaison to our PDP Working Group. Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group members, I write in my role as GNSO Council liaison to this Working Group (WG) to follow up on the WG meeting held last week and to clarify misunderstandings that may have arisen from that call. The intention in providing a report of the WG member consultation process was to develop a record of the views expressed in that process. Ultimately, a PDP WG is required to report its findings to the GNSO Council. The member consultation process was intended to provide a workable pathway to reaching this point, and the record of those views intended to inform the WG’s final report to the GNSO Council. I understand from last week’s call that members of the group are willing and keen to work together to reach a final document, and I fully support that happening. While the member consultation process was initiated to address a Section 3.7 appeal under the GNSO WG Guidelines in which concerns were raised about the appropriate means of designating WG consensus, the recommendations made by me and the GNSO Chair go beyond the Section 3.7 appeal, because the input received during the consultation process raised other issues going beyond the scope of the appeal. Many of these other issues dovetailed with the GNSO Council’s current initiative to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of PDPs (a process we call “PDP 3.0”). One of the priorities raised by the Council in its Strategic Planning Session in January 2018 and by PDP leaders and the community in a workshop held at ICANN61 was for Council to take a more active role in supporting and managing PDP timelines. In its Strategic Planning Session, the GNSO Council identified completion of this PDP’s work by mid-year to be a top priority based on the broader GNSO PDP workload and each PDP’s timeline and milestones. Ultimately, Heather’s and my recommendation that the WG wind up its work takes that input from the GNSO Council into account. Our recommendation can be boiled down to suggesting that the WG develop its final output for presentation to the GNSO Council; if consensus cannot be reached on any particular points, the various options raised should be identified, as these are an important record of the ideas proposed but not agreed upon. Recording this information indeed was our intention in conducting the WG member consultation process. To clarify, the intention of the WG member consultation process was never to guarantee or influence a particular substantive outcome, or even to guarantee that consensus would be reached on any/all points under discussion; it was merely to provide an alternative approach by which members could voice their views on the points under discussion and capture these for inclusion in the record and to gain an understanding of each WG member’s point of view. It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council. To that end, we suggested that if the group cannot achieve consensus on any particular points, then the model of the Cross-Country Working Group for the Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (CWG-UCTN) Final Report would be instructive (that group’s final report contains three recommendations on which consensus was reached, and a fourth recommendation presented in option form with support recorded for each option). I remain very willing to support and assist the WG in developing a final report, and I understand from last week’s call that other members of the WG are likewise willing. I suggest therefore that we form a small drafting team with a view to developing a final report by 14 May, in time for submission and consideration by the Council during the 24 May GNSO Council meeting. Kind regards, Susan (GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG)

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo - SUPPORT FOR #4.
by Paul Keating April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Paul and others,, I am sorry for being largely offline the past few weeks but an injury has taken me out of work mode. I am now back only insofar as I can now type for a few hours daily. I agree with your comments regarding waiver of immunity and agree with you up to the point where you suggest we delve into creating parallel systems. I am in favor of mediation process as a precursor to the UDRP I have been happy with the Nominet system as previously disclosed in this group. The only concern I raised with the Nominet system is that it allows Complainants to test the waters at the mediation stage which requires a formal response by the Respondent as a precondition. I have had several instances where the complainant has chosen to withdraw during mediation, leaving the Respondent in a position of having spent money with no conclusive determination as to the underlying claims. This leaves the Complainant to try again in the future. For this reason I have suggested that in such case either (a) the complainant forfeits its fee to the Respondent, or (b) the Respondent is free to insist that the uDRP continue to formal conclusion. As to an arbitration process, there is no need and am completely opposed to it (as well as #3). Private arbitration systems already exist and all that is required is for then parties to agree to them as an alternative to the UDRP process. Inserting a new process into the UDRP is untenable at this stage as it would require that we create an entire set of rules surrounding the arbitration process. This is more appropriately within the scope of the other WG already dealing with substantive URS/UDRP related issues. For this reason I continue to support option #4. If option #4 is unacceptable for some reason then I support only the option that resulted in the voiding of the UDRP decision should the NGO assert immunity in any post-UDRP proceedings. I strongly suggest that this WG get moving on producing the report that is consistent with the consensus (which as I see it strongly favors #4 and disfavors the others, particularly #3). 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 Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:37 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, "haforrestesq(a)gmail.com" <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo > Dear Mary & Steve, > > Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come > before a court: > > (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered > (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered > > In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence > In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider > the matter. > > As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out > of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other > forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases. > > (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by > bringing a UDRP > (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered > by bringing a UDRP > > The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the > IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an > action. > > > Before you can even begin to look at the soundness or otherwise of > Professor.Swaine's reasoning you need to answer the threshold question I posed > namely: > > "Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating > proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? > Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......" > > To which one of co-chair's has now replied > ³If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of > process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.² > > Quite simply the IGO's are NEVER entitled to jurisdictional immunity if they > choose to initiate proceedings. . Sure the IGO's have legal defences available > to them if someone is abusing their name but jurisdictional immunity isn't one > of them. So a report on immunity can never be relevant and should be removed. > > > The 2 co-chairs preferred option #3 also needs to be ditched, there is little > support for it anyway (only 1 other active working group member supports it) I > would guess had the numbers been reversed then victory would have been claimed > and we would be well on the way to creating an incredibly flawed final report. > > The Council, the Board, the GAC and the IGOs are not stupid they are not going > to fall for some slight of hand pretence arbitration mechanism that will most > likely never be used and that only continues to exist because it hides behind > the complexity of an irrelevant expert¹s report. The co-chairs need to save > wasting everyone's time and graciously agree to withdraw option #3. > > > We have a unique opportunity to improve process for everyone: I respectfully > suggest > > (1) Free private mediation > (2) A separate parallel arbitration track that registrants are free to choose > use if they do not want to go the judicial route. > > There shouldn¹t be anything in either of those two proposals that is in the > slightest bit contentious for any stakeholder - it really is a win-win. The > only question is Is the working group prepared to come together to make it > happen for IGOs or do we just delay ICANN fashion until the RPM working group > gets around to looking at it in a few years time for all disputes not just > those initiated by IGOs? > > The IGO¹s have asked for help now I say let¹s help them. > > Yours sincerely, > > > Paul > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> Dear Paul and everyone, >> >> Staff is taking the liberty here of addressing your specific question about >> Professor Swaine¹s memo, including your concern that it may have analyzed a >> situation where it is not the IGO that commences proceedings but rather is >> the subject of proceedings against it by a trademark owner. We hope the >> following extracts from the memo will be useful in clarifying the basis on >> which Professor Swaine gave his opinion. >> >> * In his memo, Professor Swaine notes that he ³focuses on the most likely >> scenario: that in which an IGO, possessing rights in a name, abbreviation, >> emblem or the like arising under the Paris Convention has complained and >> prevailed before an administrative panel in Uniform Domain Name Dispute >> Resolution Policy (³Policy² or ³UDRP²) proceedings against a domain-name >> registrantresulting in an order of cancellation or transfer to which the >> losing registrant objects by commencing a judicial action ³ (see Page 77 of >> the Working Group¹s Initial Report, at Annex G). >> >> * He notes that ³how matters unfold from that point [following the >> registrant¹s filing suit] will depend on national law² (Page 81, Annex G) as >> to the question, ³whetherin light of an IGO¹s assent to Mutual >> Jurisdictionits immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is that it >> would not The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction would likely establish such a >> waiver, as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to foreign >> sovereign immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would >> likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts. The >> overall answer, then, is contingent. If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction >> clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity from judicial process; in the >> status quo, however, it likely would not. Equitable considerations might >> influence any judicial analysis² (Page 78, Annex G). >> >> * Concluding that ³In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause means that >> participating IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process, >> notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be entitled. This >> will loom largest in cases in which the IGO is the complainant and benefited >> from an initial panel decision in its favor, such that the decision to resort >> to judicial proceedings against the IGOand the risks that creates for >> adverse resultsis made by the private party² (Page 82, Annex G), Professor >> Swaine focuses the remainder of his memo on this scenario. >> >> * As part of his analysis, Professor Swaine also proposed a number of >> alternative policy proposals for the Working Group¹s consideration, including >> possibly amending the Mutual Jurisdiction clause or arbitration. These were >> noted and discussed on several Working Group calls in late 2016, prior to the >> issuance of the Initial Report in January 2017. >> >> While the above summary cannot reflect the entirety or depth of Professor >> Swaine¹s advice, staff thought it might be helpful to recall these points >> given the question raised by Paul. The full memo was attached to the Initial >> Report as Annex G: >> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-… >> p-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary & Steve >> >> >> >> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of >> Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:49 >> To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> >> Cc: "haforrestesq(a)gmail.com" <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, >> "Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, >> "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org>, >> "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: >> IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) >> >> >> >> Dear Philip, >> >> In your reply to George Kirikos you stated: >> >> ³If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of >> process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.² >> >> Thank you that is helpful. >> >> When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO >> could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a domain >> name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group that this >> scenario was not within the working group¹s charter. >> >> Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional >> immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated: >> >> ³If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of >> process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.² >> >> I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant to >> the working group¹s final report. I don¹t doubt it was expensive and >> interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you >> reply showing how it could be in any way considered relevant? >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com >> <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > wrote: >>> >>> Paul: >>> >>> Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine¹s memo is an >>> excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the >>> varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the >>> validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this >>> expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that >>> ICANN funded the research. >>> >>> I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body >>> determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory >>> rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of >>> addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid >>> claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action. >>> >>> Philip >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin >>> Policy Counsel >>> VeriSign, Inc. >>> 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3 >>> D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-2 >>> 6source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe >>> -idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv5 >>> 7xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e=> >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> 703-948-4648/Direct >>> 571-342-7489/Cell >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>> >>> From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com> ] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM >>> To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > >>> Cc: icann(a)leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> ; Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar; >>> haforrestesq(a)gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> ; >>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> ; >>> rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary >>> Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working >>> Group) >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Philip, >>> OK lets settle this once and for all: >>> Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating >>> proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? >>> >>> >>> >>> Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do...... >>> >>> If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is >>> considering. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com >>> <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul: >>>> >>>> For the record, and in regard to this >>>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to >>>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue >>>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for >>>> months and months on end. >>>> >>>> The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was >>>> blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when >>>> the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs >>>> later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but >>>> George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am >>>> aware you supported George in these actions. >>>> >>>> Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members >>>> the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. >>>> >>>> Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the >>>> Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before >>>> the WG. >>>> >>>> Philip >>>> >>>> Philip S. Corwin >>>> Policy Counsel >>>> VeriSign, Inc. >>>> 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com] >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq- >>>> 3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail >>>> -26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69 >>>> mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAV >>>> Unv57xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e=> >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> 703-948-4648/Direct >>>> 571-342-7489/Cell >>>> >>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >>>> >>>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org >>>> <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Paul >>>> Tattersfield >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM >>>> To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> > >>>> Cc: Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> ; Heather >>>> Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> >; >>>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> ; >>>> rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> >>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary >>>> Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working >>>> Group) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear ICANN, >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call >>>> later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which >>>> clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any >>>> comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my >>>> apologies >>>> >>>> Briefly, I would also like to point out: >>>> >>>> The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are >>>> initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in >>>> either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an >>>> incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in >>>> the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be >>>> entitled to do so. >>>> >>>> The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case >>>> where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark >>>> owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not >>>> relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are >>>> initiating proceedings. >>>> >>>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to >>>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue >>>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for >>>> months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people >>>> in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any >>>> other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. >>>> >>>> We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM >>>> working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved >>>> for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's >>>> favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and >>>> meets the GAC's advice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate >>>> (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants >>>> to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name >>>> only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of >>>> meetings and no interest group has lost anything! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yours sincerely, >>>> >>>> Paul. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com >>>> <mailto:icann@leap.com> > wrote: >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, >>>>> there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss >>>>> orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written >>>>> response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx >>>>> interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to >>>>> post them in advance of the call. >>>>> >>>>> 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is >>>>> extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of >>>>> participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. >>>>> For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP >>>>> according to: >>>>> >>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive[gnso.icann.org] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_gr >>>>> oup-2Dactivities_inactive&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xc >>>>> l4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trx >>>>> HT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=2Pum4Md0vfHMKn5AUBAH3Z-j6dHKCuF_ZhREl6ZbzXU&e=> >>>>> >>>>> has its attendance logs at: >>>>> >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log[community.ican >>>>> n.org] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_ >>>>> display_ITPIPDWG_Attendance-2BLog&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS >>>>> 6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYe >>>>> LCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=SM46RS2yu2NqlCCV6jC_TqeffNSm5NO7Hrg2Z_z >>>>> xdzw&e=> >>>>> >>>>> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total >>>>> number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: >>>>> >>>>> Sum of total attended column = 553 >>>>> Total meetings = 56 >>>>> Average = 9.88 per meeting >>>>> >>>>> It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted >>>>> their recommendations: >>>>> >>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d[gnso.icann.org] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_gr >>>>> oup-2Dactivities_active_irtp-2Dd&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 >>>>> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeL >>>>> Csl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=j2Zvmixa4aRhzYenT-dnA022yco2l1JnPBILd7c6 >>>>> P2A&e=> >>>>> >>>>> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: >>>>> >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records[commun >>>>> ity.icann.org] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_ >>>>> display_gnsoicrpmpdp_Attendance-2BRecords&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV >>>>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE >>>>> _Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=mwySLJqja9rtF5SFHTy4NbNmZuRg0Tz >>>>> TEP7xPbL3BMk&e=> >>>>> >>>>> Sum of total attended column = 711 >>>>> Total meetings = 71 >>>>> Average = 10.01 per meeting >>>>> >>>>> So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 >>>>> per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was >>>>> successfully completed. >>>>> >>>>> 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a >>>>> Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's >>>>> a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: >>>>> >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/587 >>>>> 2= >>>>> 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf[community.icann.org] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_ >>>>> display_RARPMRIAGPWG_WG-2BCharter-3Fpreview-3D3D_5872-3D9944_58730036_Char >>>>> ter-2520for-2520RPM-2520PDP-5Ffinal.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzg >>>>> fkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_C >>>>> r9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=ps70jf_1KqUAI3uRTbpQJ4U149wbZN0CH >>>>> dG6lKySm40&e=> >>>>> >>>>> and states on page 3 of the charter that: >>>>> >>>>> "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts >>>>> In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the >>>>> progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN >>>>> groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or >>>>> ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** >>>>> .... >>>>> In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into >>>>> consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT >>>>> Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" >>>>> >>>>> (emphasis added) >>>>> >>>>> So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's >>>>> current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. >>>>> >>>>> As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I >>>>> have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they >>>>> don't require any links/quotes. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> George Kirikos >>>>> 416-588-0269 >>>>> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFa >>>>> Q&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2 >>>>> w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=V1eNh6 >>>>> UuyYEnssdELGy5BGrOMHYiXX7md_UYRrQBKek&e=> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > wrote: >>>>>> > Dear all, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working >>>>>> > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in >>>>>> her 10 >>>>>> > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar >>>>>> > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently >>>>>> > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with >>>>>> > everyone. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks and cheers >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Mary & Steve >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com> > >>>>>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 >>>>>> > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> " >>>>>> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> > >>>>>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> >, Mary Wong >>>>>> > <mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, Steve Chan >>>>>> <steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> > >>>>>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process >>>>>> Working >>>>>> > Group >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group >>>>>> > members, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this >>>>>> Working >>>>>> > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set >>>>>> out >>>>>> > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and >>>>>> following. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report >>>>>> for >>>>>> > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with >>>>>> > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO >>>>>> Chair. >>>>>> > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this >>>>>> week, for >>>>>> > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next >>>>>> > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a >>>>>> summary of >>>>>> > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG >>>>>> members. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear >>>>>> in >>>>>> > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will >>>>>> be >>>>>> > made to support our call. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide >>>>>> me >>>>>> > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the >>>>>> group >>>>>> > on this challenging policy area. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Susan Kawaguchi >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Councilor for the Business Constituency >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>>>> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >>>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
by Mary Wong April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear all, On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 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> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call. In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area. Kind regards, Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency

8 18

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/issues-with-adobe-connect-at-icann61> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP on 19 April 2018
by Terri Agnew April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Dear All, Please find the WebEx Chat attached. The attendance and MP3 recording below for the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms held on Thursday, 19 April 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-19apr18-en.mp3 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 Philip Corwin David Maher Zak Muscovitch Jay Chapman Crystal Ondo Poncelet Ileleji Guest Speaker: Susan Kawaguchi Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa Paul Tattersfield 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/wAEFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

3 3

IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
by Susan Kawaguchi April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call. In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area. Kind regards, Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency

1 0

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

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

1 0