July 2018 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

George Kirikos comments on July 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 2 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report)
by George Kirikos July 4, 2018

July 4, 2018

Hi folks, I hope our US members are enjoying the 4th of July holiday. Continuing from yesterday's email which had "Part 1": https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html here are some additional comments on the draft, up to page 27. I would highlight point #17 as a discussion point, i.e. potentially leaving expanded text to minority reports, as an alternative to beefing up that section. (all page references relative to "Clean" PDF version of July 2, 2018 draft, unless otherwise stated) 15. page 18 - middle paragraph says '1CANN6' (should be ICANN60). 16. page 21 -- "jurosdiction" is a typo 17. pages 17-21 -- recommendation 5 -- each of the sections is very "light" in terms of description. We could consider either beefing up each option equally, OR, leave it as is (since each option is "equally" light), and then permit folks to make their more detailed descriptions of the costs/benefits of each option in the minority reports. I think the latter option, given the timeline, might make most sense. Perhaps the main document can then suggest (in the beginning of Recommendation 5) that the various proponents/critics of various options have provided more detailed analysis in the minority reports, e.g. a footnote right after: "The final six policy options, with the associated outcome following the end of the Working Group’s formal consensus call process, were:" with the footnote referencing the minority reports. I think the minority reports should be allowed in PDF format, and placed at the very end of the document (much more easier to merge multiple PDFs easily that way, and not ruin anyone's formatting, etc.). 18. page 21 -- "This possibility is not new" - footnote 11. We should refer to the Tribunal Immunity case in the USA as a related "test" of how courts would answer that question (that it was seen in that case as a limited waiver of immunity). That's the Windcreek.com dispute referenced in the email at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000960.html (and with attachments from the court case). Earlier in that paragraph it talks about how the circumstances will be "rare". We should point out that IGOs have already filed a number of UDRP cases since 1999 when the UDRP was created, see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000895.html for details (from Footnote in Swaine report), and they've *never* been appealed to a court. 19. Page 22, first sentence (continuing from page 21): "One concern that has been expressed in this regard is the need to ensure that no additional legal rights are created as a result of any consensus policies developed through the ICANN process." I would suggest expanding on that by saying (directly after the above): "It was agreed that ICANN is not the place to create new legal rights, but instead should reflect underlying legal rights reflected in national laws. The UDRP and URS were designed to complement, but not replace or interfere with, existing legal rights of all stakeholders. To the extent that the current UDRP and URS inadvertently interferes with or prejudices the rights of parties to have a case decided on the merits in the national courts, it was felt that putting both parties back in the same position they would be absent the UDRP/URS was an appropriate solution." 20. page 26: " the need to recognize and preserve a registrant’s longstanding right to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction" It's not just the "right to appeal". More properly and precisely, it's a right to have a de novo determination **on the merits** in a court of competent jurisdiction. i.e. an "appeal" that is dismissed on a technicality, without considering the merits of the dispute (e.g. IGO asserting immunity, or no cause of action in the UK yoyo.email case) isn't sufficient. 21. page 23 (? or thereabouts): A new paragraph should be added to *emphasize* that immunity is a defense to an action, and that there's no immunity when an IGO initiates a dispute (i.e. is the complainant). There should be no expectation of an IGO to have immunity for the overall dispute , since it's the one initiating it. Had the UDRP/URS been properly designed, then the IGO should have gained no legal advantage by filing the UDRP/URS first, compared to the situation where they simply filed a court action. Had the UDRP/URS not existed or not been used, the IGO would be the complainant in a court action, and thus would have no ability to assert immunity (since it is not the defendant, and only defendants can assert immunity). However, a court action seeking de novo review brought by a losing domain name registrant after a UDRP/URS causes the IGO to be the defendant (rather than the complainant). This role reversal between complainants and defendants causes a quirk of process to exist, whereby the IGO (now the defendant) might attempt to assert immunity as a defense (despite the existence of the mutual jurisdiction clause), an argument that could not have been made had the role reversal not taken place. In other words, the Swaine report wasn't looking at the overall context of the IGO being the initiator of the dispute. He's taking the things as they are i.e. accepting the role reversal as it exists, without questioning these unintended side effects in terms of allowing immunity to be asserted. The working group members, however, looked at the overall picture holistically, though, the UDRP/URS was never intended to advantage any party, create new legal rights, or interfere with existing legal rights. So, to the extent that these unintended side effects are "cured" by our recommendations, we've made the appropriate policy choice, by putting back the two parties in the same position they'd be absent the UDRP/URS. 22. page 26: "advisable approach would be not to recommend any changes to the URDP or URS at this time" --- incorrect, as Option #1 is a change. Can modify to rewrite as: Ultimately, the Working Group decided, for the following reasons: [insert 1, 2, 3] that the most prudent and advisable approach was to recommend Option #1 for Recommendation #5. However, the list of reasons here is slightly different than the reasons on page 12 (where there are 5 reasons, not 3). They should be made identical. 23. page 12, item 3: see point #20 above; it's not just the right to "bring a case to a court of competent jurisdiction", but a right to have the case determined de novo on the merits. 24. page 27, footnote 16: can link to the cases in the Swaine report itself, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000895.html which had the cases from the relevant Swaine footnote. More to come later (today and/or tomorrow), but I thought this would be a good place to break for lunch. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

George Kirikos comments on July 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 1 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report)
by George Kirikos July 4, 2018

July 4, 2018

Hi folks, Given time is of the essence, below are some comments after reviewing the first 17 pages of the July 2, 2018 draft final report. There will be more comments tomorrow and/or Thursday, but I thought I'd get these initial comments out early, so that staff and/or other PDP members can benefit from seeing them sooner rather than later. I would pay particular attention to comment #9 (others might want to carefully review the text, given that issue!). (all page references relative to "Clean" version of July 22 draft, unless otherwise stated) 1. page 5, "Note on Recommendation #2" -- I'm assuming the "insert relevant section/page" will be updated in a future draft? If it's just the relevant section (without a page number), that should be sufficient for it to not have to change between revisions. Same in a few other places. [i.e. I'd have expected these to have been filled out, as we get to a near-final report draft] 2. page 5, Recommendation #3: it says that "ICANN Organization" shall create the policy guidance. In Recommendation #2 (page 4), the policy guidance is from "ICANN". I'm assuming both of these would be created via an Implementation Review Team (IRT), so I think the language of Recommendation #3 should be simply changed to "ICANN" (rather than "ICANN Organization"). i.e. we *don't* want ICANN staff to be creating the policy guidance -- it should be done via the IRT. 3. page 7, "Note on Recommendation #5". "losing registrant notifies ICANN" -- should instead be that the losing registrant notifies the REGISTRAR. i.e. section 4(k) of the UDRP is between the registrant and the registrar: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en Same fix required later in the same paragraph. "ICANN will take no action" should be changed to "Registrar will take no action". 4. while this was supposed to be the "clean" version of the document, Recommendation #4 (page 5 and page 6) and Recommendation #5 (page 7) seem to have some remnant notes in the right column and formatting taken from the "redline" version. Same on page 12 (and elsewhere). 5. page 10, 2nd paragraph "to not recommend any substantive changes to the UDRP or URS at this time". Since some debate whether changes to 4(k) are "substantive", etc., perhaps change the phrasing to match the language in the prior paragraph, i.e. "would be to not modify any of the substantive grounds of the UDRP or URS at this time." (since "substantive grounds" would refer to the specific portions of the UDRP/URS that we're not changing) This would also be more consistent with Recommendation #1's language re: "substantive changes" (which we did *not* apply to IGOs) 6. page 10, recommendation #1, "initial conclusion" can be simplified to be "conclusion" (2nd last paragraph of that page) given where we are now. 7. page 10, recommendation #1: last paragraph seems to repeat much of the same language of the immediately prior paragraph. I would simply rewrite it as: "In relation to INGOs, the following is the Working Group’s rationale for its conclusion:" (i.e. get rid of the last 3 lines of text). If this is done, then footnote 4 needs to be moved, perhaps to the word "rationale" from its current position. 8. page 11, paragraph #3 " issue of ICANN subsidizing INGOs to utilize DRPs is outside the scope of the Working Group’s Charter" Is that correct? Because arguably the "scope" of the charter included (from bottom of page 5) "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”, I'm not sure how best to rephrase it, but it might be something to consider modifying slightly. 9. pages 13-14: Recommendation #2. This does *not* appear to be an exact copy/paste of the recommendation from earlier in the document (pages 4-5). They should be word-for-word identical, but they're not. e.g. on page 14, first line, it says "service rights" instead of "service mark rights". On page 13, it says "does not have trademark or service rights", but it should be "does not have REGISTERED trademark or service MARK rights" Obviously we can't have different language for the recommendations in different sections of the document -- they need to be identical. If it happened to this recommendation, it might be a problem elsewhere in the document too. I can't check everything, so hopefully others are watching for this when reviewing these documents. 10. page 15, paragraph 1: "The Working Group believes that an IGO’s reliance on its compliance with the Article 6ter procedure for the limited purpose of demonstrating standing will not necessarily result in an increased number of complaints.." This seems to be the language from an older report, where the recommendation was different. So, that was our OLD belief. So, perhaps it needs to change to something like: "Initially, the Working Group believed that …." and then it would flow with the rest of the page, i.e. 2 paragraphs later it talks about how we got specific comments, etc. after the initial recommendations. The 2nd paragraph seems to have changed things correctly already (i.e. used language such as "believed", "originally considered", etc). 11. page 15, paragraph 1: same as argument as point #10 above, where it says "The Working Group also believes…" These were our older beliefs, which we've changed. 12. page 15, paragraph 3: consider changing "equalizing" in line 3 to "elevating" 13. page 16, recommendation #3: There is no reasoning or rationale here! This section needs to be beefed up and expanded considerably. The word "assignee" appears only 5 times in the entire document (and those other places don't really elaborate much). I would at least: i) reuse the language from page 21, i.e. it's "a potential means of insulating themselves against any direct concession on mutual jurisdiction." (fixing the typo on page 21 for "jurisdiction) ii) point to relevant text in the WIPO overview, e.g. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/oldoverview/#18 iii) Note that an IGO has *already* successfully used this procedural workaround, i.e. the UNITAID case, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/date.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000220.html iv) reference the appropriate section from the Swaine report that also mentioned it. 14. page 17, recommendation 4: important to emphasize in the supporting language (not just in the recommendation) that any subsidies should not create an uneven playing field between complainants and respondents. Something like: "Furthermore, many Working Group members believe expressed concern that subsidizing a complainant might create an uneven playing field between complainants and respondents. Thus, in the event that a complainant receives financial support, the respondent should also receive financial support for its defense." Or words to that effect. More to come later. I'm expecting many comments re: Recommendation 5, so the above was a good place to stop for now. By the way, with regards to "Minority Statements", must they be in Word Format? Why not PDF? (since they're not reviewed/edited, they can then be merged using various tools that merge PDFs, or simply kept as separate standalone PDFs?) Would also be nice to know whether staff or Petter had heard back from GNSO Council / Heather / Susan re: ideas for adjust our timeline, as per yesterday's call (i.e. if they moved the GNSO Council call back a week, that would give us more time; or if they made a special meeting between the scheduled July/August calls). Because, I think it'll be very hard to be done by Monday....would be nice to hear from them *before* Thursday's call (rather than leaving it until after Thursday's call, when there's no limited time before the Monday "deadline"). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Working Group members, > > > > Staff has posted copies, in both Word and PDF formats, and in both redlined > and clean versions, of the updated Draft Final Report for your review on the > Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/UoVHBQ. You will > also find links to the most recent GAC Communique (from ICAN62 in Panama > last week), that includes advice to the ICANN Board concerning our PDP, as > well as the GNSO Council’s resolution also from Panama, requesting that we > complete our Final Report by 9 July 2018 (the document deadline for the > Council’s July meeting). We have done our best to capture what we believe to > be the most current and agreed text, especially of the specific > recommendations and consensus levels, but remain ready to make further > updates and corrections as may be needed. > > > > Please note the following: > > Please limit your suggestions for edits and corrections to substantive > matters (e.g. errors of substance) rather than formatting, typos, preferred > word usages/phrasing, or grammar (unless there are egregious errors). This > will allow us to complete our work as expeditiously as possible, as seems to > be expected by the GNSO Council. > Please do not send back redlines of the document, as it can be difficult to > track and capture multiple versions. Instead, please send your comments via > email to this mailing list so that staff can make sure all substantive > comments are noted and addressed. > The redline was done against the last version of the draft that was > circulated (i.e. the 11 May document). The redlined changes that you see are > therefore either new additions, corrections or modifications of the text > from 11 May, for which members had been asked to submit comments by 22 May. > Please therefore do not suggest further edits to the non-redlined text > unless you see egregious errors that were not previously spotted (especially > as much of the 11 May 2018 text was retained from the January 2017 Initial > Report). > We have added a few comment boxes to indicate where and why certain > insertions/changes were made (especially as regards rationale and specific > suggestions made either to the 11 May document or on the recent Working > Group calls). > We have also updated the GAC advice to include the GAC’s most recent > Communique, issued last week in Panama City. > We have not included references to the recent and ongoing appeal filed by > George under Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as that > process has so far proceeded separately from the Working Group’s final > deliberations – but please let us know if this should be added. > > > > Process for filing Minority Statements: > > As minority statements are not reviewed or edited by the Working Group or > staff, they can be sent in any time. For purposes of meeting the Council’s > requested deadline, however, it will be helpful if you can send to staff any > minority statement that you may wish to file in Word format by 1200 UTC on > Monday 9 July. > > > > Our understanding is that Petter would like to discuss, and hopefully attain > agreement on, any substantive errors or omissions in the report at our > meeting this Thursday, 5 July. As such, please be sure to review the > redlined changes before the call if you can. We apologize for the short > notice, as the ICANN62 meeting last week made it impossible for us to > complete the draft before today. (NOTE: If you wish to focus on the major > substantive issues, you may wish to begin your review with Section 1.2 > (pages 3-7 of the redlined Word version) and a portion of Section 2.1.1 > (pages 10- 22 of the redlined Word version).) > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best regards, > > Mary & Steve > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

3 3

Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of Chair, Liaison, and Staff (was Re: Intention to File another Section 3.7 appeal (was Re: Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC))
by George Kirikos July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Hi folks, As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g… I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one. On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call", https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html with examples of 2 other PDPs. Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example: i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text. ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all. iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours": https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html with no summary report until a month later. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html (attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner. That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work. On April 26, 2018, Susan stated: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html "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." But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… "This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4) and " Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no. Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes." But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document. Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us. Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place. "That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added) Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened. ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.). In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track). [There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting] Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report. I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!] Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Less than 1 hour left (it's just after 3:00 pm now in Toronto). Does > anyone think I bluff? (especially after already filing a DIDP request > this morning) Given I've not heard anything to change my mind yet, if > Petter, Susan and Heather have time *today* (right after 4 pm Toronto > time), that might move things along expeditiously, after the 3.7 is > invoked, to immediately have the required calls, etc. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> Not good enough, Mary. Not even close to being good enough. >> >> Had I been in your position (your = Mary, Steve, Petter), the *first* >> thing I would have done was immediately acknowledge to the group that >> there were obvious errors in the document, and it would have been >> accompanied by an apology. Then, I would have immediately taken >> ownership of the issue, and told people to hold off on reading it, and >> would have *recounted* all the support levels, and then double- and >> triple-checked them to get it right. I would have worked through the >> night to get it done, in order to make sure that others wouldn't have >> to redo the work, and would have time to review things. >> >> We have your response that I'm replying to, and we also have Petter's: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001247.html >> >> which fail to come close to being an acceptable response. It is >> trivial to verify that Mike Rodenbaugh's input wasn't reflected in the >> report. Trivial to verify that David Maher's input was similarly >> ignored. And so on. >> >> There's a pattern here. The last time there were blatantly obvious >> mistakes in reports, did you guys fix them in a timely manner? Go read >> the post at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html >> >> where I kept calling out this issue, wrong counts of the inputs. I'm >> forced to write these long "rebuttal" documents constantly pointing >> out things like "Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from >> the Liaison": >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html >> >> and even then, there's no sense of urgency from the ones making >> mistakes to take ownership and correct things in a timely manner. And >> even when they are later "fixed", they're slipped in with no >> explanation, and I have little confidence that the updated numbers are >> actually correct. >> >> I think it's clear that this PDP would have gone into oblivion, with >> no consensus on Rec #5, until I took it upon myself to get folks to >> start posting transparently on the mailing list what their views were. >> See the thread "Public Display of Possible Consensus": >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html >> >> which I started because you guys created a non-transparent procedure >> (one not supported by the working group guidelines), and even then the >> numbers were *obviously* wrong, because they didn't add up (i.e. the >> 10 minute private calls with Susan + staff at the last ICANN meeting, >> supplemented by private emails). See the post that started it off at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html >> >> The results of that open and transparent process (in line with working >> group guidelines) were very different with what Susan + staff >> prepared. The email at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315di… >> >> painted a pretty picture showing that we were coalescing around >> consensus (around an option that the co-chairs and staff didn't >> like!). Rather than recognizing that, as I put it poetically, that >> "something magical was happening" >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001155.html >> >> Contrast that with what Susan + ICANN staff prepared (with *all* their >> time and resources) on April 13: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html >> >> (basically a *month* after the ICANN meeting) It really contains just >> half a page of poorly aggregated summary. Compare that with: >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315di… >> >> which didn't leave out anything, and laid things all on the table. And >> the Google docs was produced in a much more timely manner. And I'm not >> on ICANN salary, either. >> >> This demonstrable progress in achieving consensus was looked at with >> disdain. It wouldn't even get posted to the WebEx or Wiki by ICANN >> staff at that call. Phil Corwin resigned as co-chair shortly >> thereafter. >> >> Then, we wasted several weeks doing it all over again! As Mike Rodenbaugh said: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html >> >> "How many times do we have to say the same thing? My position has not >> changed since the last time I was asked, or the time before that." >> >> One definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over >> again and expecting different results." We did do it all over again, >> regardless, and the results were essentially the same (with a few new >> contributors) >> >> Now we're left with an artificially imposed and compressed time-frame >> to do 3 or 4 weeks' worth of work in a week (and it's really less than >> a week, because we know the last 2 days of that deadline are a >> Saturday and Sunday, and we know that our "Thursday" call was moved to >> "Tuesday", so presumably people have time conflicts on Thursday should >> we need to meet again or respond quickly to edits, feedback, etc. And >> even then, there should be time given for minority reports. So really >> we should be done by Thursday, to give people time do do minority >> reports by Sunday (that's really not fair to them, giving them just 3 >> days, 2 of which are weekend days, to finish their own work, but >> that's how the math is looking). And yet, it's now Sunday, and we >> don't even *have* the latest draft report to work on! >> >> I know I'm being forceful and assertive here, and am some might >> perceive that I'm not a "team player" by pointing all these issues >> out. But, I'm trying to raise the standards and get the job done >> correctly, achieving a final document that we can all be proud of. >> I've been the one helping to achieve a consensus, working with others. >> Instead, we risk producing a half-baked final report that the IGOs/GAC >> criticize unfairly, and that doesn't pass through the ICANN Board. >> >> Who'd be the beneficiary of that "bad" outcome where our report >> doesn't get accepted? Those who oppose the apparent consensus (Option >> #1). And that happens to be the current chair, the past co-chair, and >> ICANN staff themselves (ICANN staff repeatedly voiced opposition to >> Option #1, even though they're not members of this PDP -- they're here >> for clerical support). >> >> Phil Corwin openly points to that risk: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html >> >> "This option, regardless of support level or subsequent action by the >> GNSO Council, is highly unlikely to ever be adopted by the ICANN Board >> given the near-certainty of strong adverse advice from the GAC." >> >> I believe we have a strong justification for Option #1, and have very >> thorough and sound analysis to justify our positions. It's a >> recommendation that is backed by a diverse set of stakeholders >> participating in this PDP. It's all on the mailing list archives and >> on the past phone calls, but *hasn't* been put into the Final Report >> yet. It's incumbent upon us to put it into the Final Report, so that >> it's all properly captured, in anticipation of counter-arguments that >> will be used to try to undermine it. The IGOs/GAC will not be pointing >> out all the arguments on the mailing list. They're going to point to >> the Final Report alone. And the Board is only going to rely upon that >> Final Report to see if the IGOs arguments are incorrect (there's >> certainly not going to be any future "rebuttal" opportunity to to >> respond to anything the IGOs say). >> >> In conclusion, I want to see this work behind us as much (if not more) >> as everyone else. But, I do want to make sure that the Final Report is >> of high quality, and I don't see that happening in the next week >> (especially given Mary and Petter's most recent responses). >> >> But, feel free to convince me I'm wrong on this. Give me some new >> information or insight I'm missing. Or, acknowledge the hard truth >> that we should take the 3 or 4 weeks to get this done by the July GNSO >> Council meeting. (and that's with *continuation* of weekly calls, and >> active participation on the mailing list, to get the edits done; i.e. >> don't just add 3 or 4 weeks, and then take a leisurely pause and do >> nothing for several weeks, setting up another last-minute rush job in >> the first week of July; i.e. we should be working through things >> during the ICANN meeting, and setting up calls now, and having rapid >> turns on new/update language, so we can cross the finish line and not >> procrastinate). >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> Dear George, >>> >>> I am sorry to hear that you find the staff work to be sloppy, shoddy and imprecise, and that you believe we have been nonchalant in how we have approached our duties with respect to this PDP. I hope you will permit me, as the senior staff member supporting this group, to say that I believe we have tried to discharge our duties as professionally and competently as possible in the circumstances. As I mentioned in my last email to the Working Group, Steve and I will be working with Petter and Susan to ensure that concerns, agreements and disagreements are captured and discussed appropriately, and the draft Final Report updated in accordance with GNSO rules and practice. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mary >>> >>> On 6/10/18, 12:32, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> >>> [For those I've cc'd on this email, see: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/date.html >>> >>> and >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html >>> ("initial designations document" is attachment is at very end of the >>> page) ] >>> >>> I am incredulous at Mary and Steve's nonchalant response to the email >>> thread, seemingly ignoring the fact that the document that was sent to >>> the mailing list today was replete with errors. I had thought that >>> this was a product solely of Petter's creation, but it looks like >>> there's blame to go around --- the metadata of the document that was >>> sent to the list shows the "author" was "Mary Wong". So, it appears >>> that the document had received multiple views by them, and even after >>> this email thread, it seems it's "business as usual" at their end, as >>> if nothing is wrong. Truly stunning. >>> >>> Besides the problems that were **already** pointed out, there's the fact that: >>> >>> 1. Mike Rodenbaugh's input was completely ignored! How hard is it to read: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html >>> >>> and then go back to: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001167.html >>> >>> 2. David Maher's input was completely ignored! His was the very first >>> response at: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html >>> >>> and his name is *nowhere* in the document! >>> >>> 3, Zak and Nat are listed as *supporters* of Option #3 (i.e. the >>> arbitration), when they were against: >>> >>> Zak: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html >>> >>> "I understand *Option 3* and appreciate the objective and rationale behind >>> it, although I cannot support it in its present form. >>> >>> Nat: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html >>> >>> "I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments- >>> >>> *Option #3* - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in >>> transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately >>> protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I >>> would be open to giving it strong consideration." >>> >>> It's very odd to count that as "support" for Option #3 -- that's not >>> how I read it at all, given Nat (and Zak) supported Option #1. >>> >>> 4. there could be even more errors (i.e. folks should double-check >>> what was listed in that document) >>> >>> Does anyone truly believe that, in a week (remember, the "deadline" is >>> supposedly June 17) we can (a) fix all the errors in the designations >>> (b) have time for objections (i.e. the iterative process in section >>> 3.6 of the working group guidelines), (c) review a draft final report >>> (there were long sections missing), (d) submit comments/amend that >>> draft final report, (e) agree to all the relevant changes for the >>> final report, (f) leave time for those who want to make minority >>> statements (which they can't really do until the final report is close >>> to finalization). >>> >>> The most recent draft final report was from May 9: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html >>> >>> and there's really very little good text discussing recommendation #5 >>> (i.e. capturing the full debate that took place, pros/cons, etc., so >>> that a reader of the report could actually understand them). Go look >>> at page 44 to 48 -- is that it? It's mostly spent just listing the >>> options, and then a whole bunch of process stuff, but nothing that >>> would lead a reader to understand why this was debated for over a >>> year. There's obviously other sections that need to be fixed too. >>> >>> Remember, there's only *1* call scheduled (this Tuesday), and then no >>> other calls are scheduled. >>> >>> Normally, there's a 2 week clock that *begins* when a close-to-final >>> draft final report is circulated, *along* with the specification of >>> the "initial designation levels" (which Petter only provided a few >>> hours ago) -- see the examples of past PDPs I mentioned at the top of >>> my earlier email: >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html >>> >>> If we had a 2 week clock that started when we actually receive a new >>> draft, then that might be reasonable. Then, maybe another week to >>> finalize edits. But, this would be with the draft document being >>> actively updated, and folks actively submitting comments. I don't see >>> how that would happen, given that folks are now also getting ready for >>> the upcoming ICANN meeting. >>> >>> I asked repeatedly that we keep up our weekly calls, so we could drive >>> the work forward, but it didn't happen. Go look at the wiki -- we had >>> a call April 19, May 10, May 25, and that was it! Huge gaps of wasted >>> time, where we should have been doing what we're now asked to do in a >>> single week. >>> >>> Anyhow, if folks believe we can finish everything in a week, that >>> normally takes three or four weeks, convince me. I'm willing to put in >>> the work do so, but I can't do it all. That means people actively >>> reading the reports, agreeing *swifly* to edits (obviously takes much >>> longer if there is debate about the changes) >>> >>> Otherwise, I think it's best we aim for the July GNSO Council meeting >>> (July 19th, documents due July 9th) for finalization of our work. This >>> would still require weekly calls, to get things edited properly. >>> >>> I'm going to bed, but I'll wait and see if anyone can convince me by 4 >>> pm Toronto time on Sunday (different time zones, so some of you might >>> fix that document Petter circulated, we might see a draft final report >>> to review, who knows). At that time, I'll decide whether to formalize >>> this. >>> >>> NB: If I do invoke a section 3.7 appeal, it's not intended to *stop* >>> the coming call on Tuesday, or stop any of the work we're doing. It's >>> only intended to prevent a half-baked unreviewed/unedited document to >>> be sent to GNSO Council a week from now -- we'd still work on that, >>> regardless of the outcome of the Section 3.7. I'll make myself readily >>> available to Petter/Susan/Heather so they can decide things quickly. >>> >>> My preference would be that Susan and Heather take a look at the >>> shoddy work represented by that document we saw a few hours ago, >>> replete with errors, and realize that folks really need to raise the >>> standards of the output being produced. Imposing an artificial >>> deadline isn't good for quality control. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… >>> >>> P.S. Kudos to Reg for stepping up and offering to do her own summary >>> of the feedback on Sunday morning (I intend to do the same, >>> independently). >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. >>> > >>> > Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. >>> > >>> > Thanks and cheers >>> > Mary & Steve >>> > >>> > On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of rlevy(a)tucows.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. >>> > >>> > Reg Levy >>> > (310) 963-7135 >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone. >>> > >>> > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only >>> > > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was >>> > > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: >>> > > >>> > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html >>> > > >>> > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." >>> > > >>> > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear >>> > > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might >>> > > want to weigh in again). >>> > > >>> > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others >>> > > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort >>> > > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. >>> > > >>> > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone >>> > > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part >>> > > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher >>> > > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny >>> > > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time >>> > > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we >>> > > want to do it right? >>> > > >>> > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- >>> > > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's >>> > > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus >>> > > designation levels. >>> > > >>> > > Sincerely, >>> > > >>> > > George Kirikos >>> > > 416-588-0269 >>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> > >> Hi folks, >>> > >> >>> > >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the >>> > >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, >>> > >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative >>> > >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial >>> > >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we >>> > >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* >>> > >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group >>> > >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation >>> > >> Levels. >>> > >> >>> > >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago >>> > >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html >>> > >> >>> > >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can >>> > >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough >>> > >> support." >>> > >> >>> > >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html >>> > >> >>> > >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." >>> > >> >>> > >> I don't understand what's going on there. >>> > >> >>> > >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, >>> > >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have >>> > >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus >>> > >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] >>> > >> >>> > >> When Reg wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html >>> > >> >>> > >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. >>> > >> >>> > >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's >>> > >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did >>> > >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of >>> > >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): >>> > >> >>> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html >>> > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… >>> > >> >>> > >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with >>> > >> the newer responses at some point. >>> > >> >>> > >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is >>> > >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not >>> > >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. >>> > >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually >>> > >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the >>> > >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might >>> > >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most >>> > >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). >>> > >> >>> > >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis >>> > >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. >>> > >> >>> > >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone >>> > >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have >>> > >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we >>> > >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be >>> > >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another >>> > >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work >>> > >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. >>> > >> >>> > >> Sincerely, >>> > >> >>> > >> George Kirikos >>> > >> 416-588-0269 >>> > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth >>> > >> <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> wrote: >>> > >>> Dear All WG Members, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached >>> > >>> document, to discuss further on Tuesday. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation >>> > >>> in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous >>> > >>> Consensus. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of >>> > >>> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those >>> > >>> who do not support it. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't >>> > >>> strong support for any particular position, but many different points of >>> > >>> view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and >>> > >>> sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or >>> > >>> convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth >>> > >>> listing the issue in the report nonetheless. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support >>> > >>> the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong >>> > >>> support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases >>> > >>> where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a >>> > >>> small number of individuals >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> All the best, >>> > >>> Petter >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- >>> > >>> Petter Rindforth, LL M >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Fenix Legal KB >>> > >>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr >>> > >>> 114 35 Stockholm >>> > >>> Sweden >>> > >>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 >>> > >>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 >>> > >>> E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu >>> > >>> www.fenixlegal.eu >>> > >>> >>> > >>> NOTICE >>> > >>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to >>> > >>> whom it is addressed. >>> > >>> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and >>> > >>> attorney work product. >>> > >>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are >>> > >>> requested not to read, >>> > >>> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. >>> > >>> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. >>> > >>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu >>> > >>> Thank you >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon >>> > >>> <andrea.glandon(a)icann.org>: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Dear all, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will >>> > >>> take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 >>> > >>> Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST >>> > >>> >>> > >>> For other times: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d… >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Web conference tool: Adobe Connect >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If >>> > >>> you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: >>> > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest… [tinyurl.com] >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room >>> > >>> are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if >>> > >>> your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as >>> > >>> attachment for you to download to your calendar. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the >>> > >>> Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers >>> > >>> and participant passcode below. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Thank you. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Kind regards, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Andrea >>> > >>> >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)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 >>> > > 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 >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>>

1 4