May 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

CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options
by Steve Chan June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the compilation of the Working Group’s recommendations and six (6) options related to Recommendation 5. This message is intended to kick of the consensus call process for the WG’s recommendations and remaining options under Recommendation 5. For those WG members who wish to participate in the consensus call, we ask that you respond on the email list to note your support or non-support for all recommendations (i.e., recommendations 1-4) AND the six (6) remaining options under recommendation 5. Please provide your response on or before Friday, 8 June. Subsequently, the WG Chair will consider response to the consensus call and seek to designate final consensus levels on the recommendations and options, which will be published to the WG’s email list for WG consideration. WG members will then have the opportunity to object to the designations and the WG may choose to conduct another call on Thursday, 14 June to discuss; WG members will also have the opportunity to file minority statements if applicable, which will be incorporated into a Final Report for the Council by 17 June. Note, based on the discussion on the WG’s call held on Friday, 25 May, a handful of changes were made to the attached recommendations/options document, highlighted in yellow (e.g., Recommendation 2, Recommendation 4, Option 4). In addition, footnotes were added, linking to the original rationale and suggestions made by Zak Muscovitch (Option 4), George Kirikos (Option 5) and Paul Tattersfield (Option 6). The same was not done for the first three options as those had been discussed extensively before the additional three options were added and are included unchanged from the text presented in the October 2017 poll. If you have any questions, please let us know. Best, Steve & Mary Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

13 27

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording below and the attendance and WebEx chat attached for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-25may18-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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/hyAFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Suggested language modification for Recommendation 4
by Corwin, Philip May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Here's my suggestion, as requested during our WG call today--- Current language: 4. In accordance with GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs, the Working Group recommends that ICANN investigate the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs. Proposed language: 4. In accordance with GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs as well as the Charter language requiring the Working Group to consider "The need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes", and in recognition that this Working Group has no authority to obligate the expenditure of ICANN funds, the Working Group recognizes that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is one that must be addressed directly through discussions between the ICANN Board with the GAC and IGOs, while further noting that many Working Group members believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the complainant. Feel free to treat this as a starting point and further modify it - the current language seems to imply an endorsement of possible subsidization when that does not appear to be a consensus view within the WG. 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

1 0

Document to facilitate discussion on the upcoming call
by Mary Wong May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find attached a brief document that staff has prepared that we hope will assist in the discussion on 25 May. The document comprises: (1) a table listing the current draft recommendations that were circulated as part of the draft Final Report on 11 May, along with suggested edits received as of the deadline for comments; and (2) a second table where staff has attempted to draft suggested text for two of the six policy options on the question of IGO jurisdictional immunity – namely, Option 1 (setting aside the original UDRP/URS decision where an IGO successfully asserts immunity in court), and Option 4 (referral to the RPM Working Group). We anticipate that, following the Working Group call on Friday, a formal consensus call will be opened on the mailing list, to allow all Working Group members to weigh in on all the recommendations so that appropriate consensus level designations can be made. Minority statements can also be prepared and submitted during or at the close of the formal consensus call period. At this juncture, we anticipate that the consensus call can be closed and the report finalized in time to submit the complete Final Report to the GNSO Council by 14 June 2018 (which is the document deadline for the Council’s June meeting). This is in line with the expectations of the Council. In addition, we note that George had sent some additional notes and comments on the remainder of the draft Final Report, including suggestions on necessary amendments should one of the six policy options on IGO immunity become the group’s consensus. We thank George for his comments, which we have noted, and we direct Working Group members to the full text of his 19 May email to see all the suggestions he made: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001206.html. Finally, we note also that Paul Tattersfield has continued to raise concerns on the list about Professor Swaine’s memo. We take the liberty of drawing the group’s attention to the staff note of 24 April 2018 (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001135.html) where we attempt to explain that, while Professor Swaine was not asked to opine on the situation where an IGO files suit against a registrant (the scope of the memo being limited to the situation where the IGO is asked to defend a suit filed against it by a losing registrant), these are two distinct situations, and while it is clear that in the former scenario an IGO will not have immunity (since it chose to file the lawsuit in the first place), it does not necessarily follow that this also determines the outcome of the latter scenario. Even in the latter scenario, Professor Swaine does, in fact, acknowledge that some courts will likely not grant an IGO jurisdictional immunity since the IGO – when filing the UDRP or URS in the first place – will have consented to the Mutual Jurisdiction clause. While staff does not have a voice in a Working Group, we nevertheless believe it to be our obligation to note that we do not believe that merely having the plaintiff and defendant roles reversed in these two scenarios (i.e. what George refers to as a “quirk of process”), which is a procedural issue, is a legally substantive ground on which to invalidate Professor Swaine’s expert opinion. Please note that we offer this staff perspective without any other expectation or intention except to assist the Working Group with its final deliberations. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 17:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: CONFIRMATION: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018 Dear all, This message is being sent to confirm that the Working Group meeting will take place this Friday 25 May at 1600 UTC (as scheduled in the calendar invitation you should have received last Friday). To allow for the opening of a formal consensus call at the conclusion of the meeting, the meeting will be focused on reaching agreements or understandings about all the potential recommendations that will be in the Final Report. With thanks to George for providing comments on the draft Final Report by the deadline, which was yesterday, staff will work with Susan and Petter to make sure that the documents to be discussed on the call are focused and circulated prior to the call as much as possible. We anticipate that, by opening the formal consensus call at the close of the Friday meeting, we should be able to submit the Final Report to the GNSO Council by its document deadline for its June meeting, as noted previously. Should there be any minority statements, the consensus call period will also factor those in. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp <ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 at 14:40 To: "Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Meeting Invitation (to be confirmed) IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018 Dear all, ** To be confirmed** The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Saturday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Saturday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ycylqbee Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/hyAFBQ New Connection Information New Web conference tool: Webex Please join the meeting room here: Click here [mytrials.webex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mytrials.webex.com_myt…> to join the online event. Or copy and paste the following link to a browser: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e47d3e179e7d3c74eb0e… Click "Join Now". Three audio connection possibilities: * If you are planning on listening only, please join the WebEx room via VoIP by connecting your computer audio to the WebEx room. This can be done upon logging into the room. * If your cell phone connectivity is stable and reliable, please set up a dial out to your phone from the WebEx room. This can be done upon logging into the room. * If you are intending on speaking on the call and need an operator managed connection, please join the Verizon bridge (details located below) WebEx Audio: To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. USA Toll 1-240-454-0879 Show all global call-in numbers<https://mytrials.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/global…> Access code: 929 554 299 If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> To join via Verizon Bridge, see dial in numbers and participant passcode below: Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IGO Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751

1 0

Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar
by Terri Agnew May 23, 2018

May 23, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-23-en Register Now: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar - 12 June 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two webinar sessions to assist with the community's preparations for the ICANN62 Policy Forum: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar Tuesday, 12 June 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The presentation materials will be translated into Spanish, and posted following the Webinar with the recordings of the sessions <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. Please register via <https://goo.gl/vZw8kM> this form by 11 June 2018! In this 90-minute webinar, the Policy Development Support Team will summarize the key policy activities taking place across the ICANN community. The Team will also answer your questions about ongoing community policy and advisory work and discuss what to expect at the ICANN62Policy Forum. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the <https://goo.gl/forms/dVbmhQOT8sakSsmg2> registration form or by email to <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN62, the "Pre-ICANN62 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN62 Edition" will be published by Tuesday, 5 June 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will cover during the webinar, such as: * The cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN62: * Geographic Names at the Top-Level (Work Track 5) * Update from the Registration Directory Service-WHOIS2 Review Team * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance, Access to WHOIS and Accreditation * The expected Initial Report from the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group * Presentation of the Final CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Recommendations * The various policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next steps in relation to Registration Directory Services policy work * Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community: Next steps, implementation, and ALACsessions during ICANN62 * GDPR and Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover discussions * At-Large discussion on new gTLDs and Work Tracks 1-5 * Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) Policy Hot Topics * GAC discussions on .amazon, IGO protections and 2-character codes at the second level * Board-GAC GDPR consultations * RSSAC statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops (RSSAC033) * SSAC work concerning name collisions * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO sessions on disaster and recovery and business continuity, ccNSO members meeting sessions, and Tech Day. * GAC onboarding initiatives * Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop (RSSAC034) To complement this Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar, the GNSO Policy Development Support Team will host, with the Council leadership and Policy Development Process (PDP) working group chairs, a GNSOpolicy-focused webinar on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes. This webinar is intended to serve as a replacement for the previously-offered GNSO PDP updates provided during the GNSO weekend sessions and will assist the community in preparing for GNSO policy-related discussions at ICANN62. If you would like to participate in the GNSO Policy Webinar, please register <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z5ENBC3wa2IOvAeYr27-pGU0lJIEeZCmgZkpAo2l0S 0/edit> here. The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN62!

1 0

CONFIRMATION: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018
by Mary Wong May 23, 2018

May 23, 2018

Dear all, This message is being sent to confirm that the Working Group meeting will take place this Friday 25 May at 1600 UTC (as scheduled in the calendar invitation you should have received last Friday). To allow for the opening of a formal consensus call at the conclusion of the meeting, the meeting will be focused on reaching agreements or understandings about all the potential recommendations that will be in the Final Report. With thanks to George for providing comments on the draft Final Report by the deadline, which was yesterday, staff will work with Susan and Petter to make sure that the documents to be discussed on the call are focused and circulated prior to the call as much as possible. We anticipate that, by opening the formal consensus call at the close of the Friday meeting, we should be able to submit the Final Report to the GNSO Council by its document deadline for its June meeting, as noted previously. Should there be any minority statements, the consensus call period will also factor those in. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp <ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 at 14:40 To: "Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Meeting Invitation (to be confirmed) IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018 Dear all, ** To be confirmed** The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Saturday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Saturday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ycylqbee Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/hyAFBQ New Connection Information New Web conference tool: Webex Please join the meeting room here: Click here [mytrials.webex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mytrials.webex.com_myt…> to join the online event. Or copy and paste the following link to a browser: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e47d3e179e7d3c74eb0e… Click "Join Now". Three audio connection possibilities: * If you are planning on listening only, please join the WebEx room via VoIP by connecting your computer audio to the WebEx room. This can be done upon logging into the room. * If your cell phone connectivity is stable and reliable, please set up a dial out to your phone from the WebEx room. This can be done upon logging into the room. * If you are intending on speaking on the call and need an operator managed connection, please join the Verizon bridge (details located below) WebEx Audio: To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. USA Toll 1-240-454-0879 Show all global call-in numbers<https://mytrials.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/global…> Access code: 929 554 299 If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> To join via Verizon Bridge, see dial in numbers and participant passcode below: Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IGO Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report
by Mary Wong May 20, 2018

May 20, 2018

Dear all, Please find attached a slightly-updated version of the Draft Final Report, in both Word and PDF formats. As mentioned on the Working Group call yesterday, staff has not redlined it against the Initial Report that was published in January 2017 for public comment, since the result made for a visually complicated document due to our having moved text around on top of new edits. What you will see, however, is a redline of the original Draft Final Report that we had circulated on Wednesday, with the redlined text being updates and new suggestions that we added following the call yesterday. In particular, please take note that: * To facilitate your review of the substantive changes and new text added to the Initial Report, we have highlighted these in yellow as best we could; * We have attempted to suggest modified text for Recommendation #2, to try to address the group comments from yesterday about accurately reflecting the group’s agreement (amending its previous initial recommendation) on Article 6ter of the Paris Convention; and * We will need to update certain portions (e.g. the results of the formal consensus call, any final agreed text on IGO immunity, membership and attendance, Annexes etc.) before the final version is submitted to the GNSO Council at the end of our consensus process. As mentioned on the call, staff will greatly appreciate it if you can focus your review on the substance of the report, especially as regards the recommendations, rather than on revising text because you prefer a different wording (and not because the text is inaccurate). In particular, we hope that you will not feel it necessary to edit the text that was retained from the Initial Report (save where you believe the actual substance needs to be deleted or revised). Similarly, while we will of course be glad to have typos and grammatical errors pointed out, please do not feel that you need to do so as we will scrub the text prior to Council submission. We will also be grateful if, as far as possible, you can suggest edits and revisions via comment balloons (or via point-by-point email response) rather than a direct redline – to allow us to keep better track of multiple suggestions and versions. At present, we do not have information as to when the next Working Group call will take place. Given the need for Petter and Susan to consult with the GNSO Council leadership, however, and to allow time for you to review the report, staff would like to suggest that you send back your comments no later than Monday 21 May. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve On 5/11/18, 15:18, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: P.S. If it turns out you do end up editing Wednesday's draft report before sending out the Word format, please also send out the PDF version (i.e. the PDF version can be referenced by page number, for those submitting suggested text/edits, and is more easily printed out in a standard format for everyone). e.g. page XXX, para N, change "blah" to "blah blah blah" With Word, the page numbers might vary from person to person when printing. Sincerely, George On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:00 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Hi Mary, > > I don't think anyone was really looking for an updated version of the > document from Wednesday, to reflect things said on Thursday. I think > folks just wanted the Word version of Wednesdays document, which > should be easy to provide (i.e. the master document is presumably in > Word format, so it's just a matter of sending that which was used to > generate Wednesday's PDF). > > So, it's just as easy as: "Reply All", "attach", "click the document > that already exists from Wednesday", and "Send" (depending on your > email client). > > Have a nice weekend and Mother's Day, folks! > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&… > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> Thank you Paul – yes, staff intends to send out the Word version of the >> draft Final Report today. We are doing our best to get that out to everyone >> within the next hour or so, as we have had to support other meetings and >> deadlines so we have not been able to fully incorporate feedback from the >> call yesterday (especially in relation to the 6ter recommendation). >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Mary & Steve >> >> >> >> From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> >> Date: Friday, May 11, 2018 at 14:12 >> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" >> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >> Subject: [Ext] IGO WG - Draft Report in Word Format >> >> >> >> Mary, >> >> >> >> I had thought you agreed to forward the current Draft in WORD format. I >> have not yet received it. Please send it asap given the need to quietly >> provide feedback. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul Keating >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

3 2

Please hold this date for the next Curative Rights Working Group call
by Mary Wong May 18, 2018

May 18, 2018

Dear all, Please be advised that the next call for this Working Group is likely to be scheduled for Friday 25 May, at 1600 UTC, for up to 90 minutes. While we understand that Working Group calls have to date generally taken place on Thursdays, we regret that this is not possible for next week. In view, however, of the likely need for the group to discuss any proposed updates to the current recommendations as well as progress on the remaining issue of immunity before finalizing the report to the GNSO Council in time for its June 2018 meeting, we are asking that you hold the Friday date and time as a possible slot for the next call. The GNSO Secretariat will send out a calendar invitation shortly. Best regards, Mary & Steve

1 0

Comments on our Options and suggested solution
by Petter Rindforth May 16, 2018

May 16, 2018

Dear All, I promised to come back with my personal comments, as well as suggestions to find a decent solution, that I ask you to consider before you make a decision. And, as these comments are my personal views, I – so to speak - take my chair hat off at this moment, and make this proposal as an ordinary working group member. Let me start with: Option 4 (proposed by Zak Muscovitch and presented on the Working Group’s 14 December 2017 call): “Our initial report and recommendation (that no change is required) remains valid and should be reflected in the published report of this WG. Our report should advise that even if a change were advisable or appropriate, such would necessarily require modifications to the UDRP and its accompanying rules. As such changes are within the ambit of the RPM WG, we feel it inappropriate to inject our proposals in that regard. Accordingly, the IGO WG strongly recommends that any changes to how the UDRP procedure is drafted and employed for IGO's, if any, should be referred to the RPM WG for consideration within its broader mandate to review the UDRP.” I think, and hope, that we all can agree that our long work in this WG have indeed given us knowledge of the topic enough to make our own conclusions and recommendations. If we say “this is not for us, pass this topic on to another WG, that will have at least another year or more to come to a conclusion”, it would indeed be a disaster, and also a clear signal to GAC that they shall not wait for a solution from GNSO, but instead turn directly to the Board with their claims & solution. My vote on this is a clear: No! So, let me instead rephrase Option 4 to be arecommendationthat our final conclusions regarding IGO’s, may also be considered when generally study URS and UDRP, taking into consideration the investigations, work and majority/minority recommendations from our WG. This is a decent way to recommend RPM WG to also look at our result and work, when dealing generally with URS / UDRP. I then pass on to: Option 1 (unchanged from the text presented for the October 2017 poll): “Where a losing registrant challenges the initial UDRP/URS decision by filing suit in a national court of mutual jurisdiction and the IGO that succeeded in its initial UDRP/URS complaint also succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity in that court, the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated (i.e. set aside).” This option will not solve the problem. We know - from inputs of GAC and IGO’s – that this is not accepted. And, independent from Prof. Swain’s report: it is not clear how all national courts around would deal with the “jurisdictional immunity”. If they accept, and it is the domain holder that has taken the case to court, the system is indeed not neutral to both parties. Also the domain holders need to have the possibility to have the case handled by a court or arbitration forum. Also, as we know that IGO’s are clearly against this option, if the WG decides in favour of Option 1, it would be a clear message to GAC and IGO’s that GNSO cannot (don’t want to) solve the problem, and I am sure that GAC will turn to the ICANN Board to ask them to decide 100% in favour of GAC’s own solution: A separate dispute resolution system for IGO’s. So, my vote is a clear NO to Option 1. Option 2 (unchanged from the text presented for the October 2017 poll): In relation to domain names with a CREATION DATE before the (Policy Effective Date), then Option [1] applies. In relation to domain names with a CREATION DATE on or after the (Policy Effective Date), Option [3] shall apply. After five (5) years or 10 instances of Option [3] being utilized, whichever occurs first, ICANN and the various dispute resolution providers (including any who have administered arbitration proceedings under the new Option [3] will conduct a review to determine the impact, both positive and negative, as a result of “trying out” Option [3]. The problem with this option is that it is an unworkable mix of option 1 and option 3, and thereby not solving the topic. Also, as explained before by Mr Kirikos on a direct question: the meaning of “creation date” is the date when a domain name was initially registered, not taking into consideration that it may have been transferred a number of times after that to other domain holders. Option 2 is definitely not a solution, and from what I can see from others comments, the majority of this WG agree to that. Option 5 (proposed by George Kirikos, modified from an earlier proposal and also noted as a proposal that can be included in Option 4 in the event of a referral to the RPM Working Group): “The text of both the UDRP and URS rules and policies shall be modified so that, in the event a domain name dispute (UDRP or URS) is initiated by an IGO as complainant and a registrant commences an "in rem" action in a court of mutual jurisdiction concerning that domain name, the registrar shall treat that court action in the same manner as if an "in personam" action had been brought directly against the IGO”. This is one of the options that at least has some active solution proposed. It may sound easy from a pure US legal view. However, “in rem” is not a globally clear solution or accepted by courts in general. I am not convinced that this option will work. Have in mind that a majority of the IGO’s in fact have their head offices in Europe (Switzerland) with other legal praxis than USA. My vote is therefore: NO. Option 6 (proposed by Paul Tattersfield, with a slight amendment to the text following discussion on the Working Group’s 14 December call): "We should arrange for the UDRP providers [to] provide [mediation] at no cost to the parties. The UDRP already permits the resolution of disputes through arbitration - I would bind the IGOs to arbitration in the same way the Mutual Jurisdiction clause binds complainants to the registrant’s judicial system. Where an IGO refuses to take part in a judicial proceeding or judicial or arbitral proceedings, or successfully asserts immunity in a judicial proceeding, any prior UDRP determination would be quashed." My comments: Mediation may work also in some kind of domain disputes. It is established in some ccTLD disputes as a first step. However, my experience from domain disputes in Denmark, Finland and Norway (where this system is included) is that it is in most cases only a step that both parties need to pass on – with no result – in order to get to the final proceeding. It will definitely not work for URS, as this is already a fast procedure. It may be something to further discuss generally when we talk about possible changes of the UDRP (and can therefore be a part of our recommendation for that WG to consider, or each members of this WG is free to make their own separate recommendations in the RPM WG). Although I have mediated in a number of complicated business disputes with a good result for both parties involved, I am not convinced that this is a workable solution for IGO disputes. However, if the majority of this WG think it is worthwhile to consider as an initial step, I am prepared to find a way to include it in Option 3 below. Option 3 (unchanged from the text presented for the October 2017 poll): “Where a complainant IGO succeeds in a UDRP/URS proceeding, the losing registrant proceeds to file suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction, and the IGO subsequently succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity, the registrant shall have the option to transfer the dispute to an arbitration forum meeting certain pre-established criteria for determination under the national law that the original appeal was based upon, with such action limited to deciding the ownership of the domain name. The respondent shall be given 10 days (or a longer period of time if able to cite a national statute or procedure that grants a period longer than 10 days) to either: (1) inform the UDRP/URS provider [and the registrar] that it intends to seek arbitration under this limited mechanism; or (2) request that the UDRP/URS decision continue to be stayed, as the respondent has filed, or intends to file, a judicial appeal against the IGO’s successful assertion of immunity. An IGO which files a complaint under the UDRP/URS shall be required to agree to this limited arbitration mechanism when filing the complaint. If, subsequently. it refuses to participate in the arbitration, the enforcement of the underlying UDRP/URS decision will be permanently stayed. The parties shall have the option to mutually agree to limit the original judicial proceedings to solely determining the ownership of the domain name. Subject to agreement by the registrant concerned, the parties shall also be free to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism described above at any time prior to the registrant filing suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction. In agreeing to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism, both the complainant and respondent are required to inform ICANN”. This is definitely the best solution. It takes into consideration the legal aspects of both groups of interest: the IGOs as well as the domain holder. Especially if we include the possibility for the parties to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism at any time prior to the registrant filing suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction. Arbitration, promoted as a way to resolve disputes efficiently, proponents of arbitration commonly point to a number of advantages it offers over litigation, court hearings, and trials. Avoids hostility:Because the parties in an arbitration are usually encouraged to participate fully and sometimes even to help structure the resolution, they are often more likely to work together peaceably rather than escalate their angst and hostility toward one another, as is often the case in litigation. Usually cheaper than litigation: There are also developed possibilities for online arbitration, that can cut the costs and time, and will work out very well when it comes to domain name disputes. Faster than litigation:A court case normally takes from 18 months to three years to wend its way through the courts. Flexible: Unlike trials, which must be worked into overcrowded court calendars, arbitration hearings can usually be scheduled around the needs and availabilities of those involved, including weekends and evenings.Simplified rules of evidence and procedure: The often convoluted rules of evidence and procedure do not apply in arbitration proceedings -- making them less stilted and more easily adapted to the needs of those involved.Private: Arbitration proceedings are generally held in private. And parties sometimes agree to keep the proceedings and terms of the final resolution confidential. Both of these safeguards can be a boon if the subject matter of the dispute might cause some embarrassment or reveal private information, such as a company's client list (meaning for example the list of users of the domain holder). So: YES!! This (Option 3) is the only way to move forward, having the interest of both IGO’s and domain holders in mind. And now I put my chair hat on again, and look forward to your comments and solutions, again hoping that you all agree with me that we shall take this possibility to come to our own conclusions and recommendation, and not just pass it on to another WG or say that we make no changes/solutions. Best regards,Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

2 1