- Gnso-igo-ingo-crp - lists.icann.org

Register Now: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House – 1 March 2018 - ICANN
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-02-08-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Register Now: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House – 1 March 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions for an upcoming webinar: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House Thursday, 1 March 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 26 February 2018! In this interactive 60-minute open house, the focus will be an active question and answer session with the Policy Development Support Team. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the registration form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_dVbmhQOT8…> or email them to policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN61, the "Pre-ICANN61 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN61 Edition" will be published by Monday, 26 February 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 discuss during the open house, such as: * An overview of the cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN61: * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): WHOIS Compliance Models * A Walk in the Shoes of a New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Operator * Name Collisions * Open Data at ICANN * 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 (ccTLDs) * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS * International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations Access to Curative Rights Dispute Resolution Mechanisms * Protections for Red Cross National Society Names in the Domain Name System * 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 * At-Large Summit (ATLAS) III * GAC discussion on the .amazon Independent Review Process * GAC discussion on evolving relationships with ICANN Board and ICANN Org * RSSAC statement on entries in DNS Root Sources * RSSAC & SSAC Response to the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Root Scaling * SSAC Response to the ICANN Internationalized Domain Name Guidelines Working Group * SSAC work concerning the use of emoji in domain names * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO Rejection Action Procedure as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community * Impact of ICANN's Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on ccTLDs The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN61! Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 26 February 2018! About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Statement from the Co-Chairs
by Mary Wong Feb. 4, 2018

Feb. 4, 2018

Hello Phil and everyone, Staff has provided the GNSO Council leadership and the Council liaison to this PDP with copies of the email exchanges that took place this week on our mailing list, as well as a copy of the co-chairs’ 31 January proposal, as requested by Phil. We understand that the GNSO Chair, Dr Heather Forrest, is away next week so it is probable that we will not receive her response before her return. In the meantime, we invite Working Group members who have not yet weighed in on the question as to whether you support (or not) the use of a community facilitator to indicate your preference via this mailing list. Thank you. Cheers Mary and Steve From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 09:39 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Statement from the Co-Chairs The co-chairs are extremely disappointed by Mr. Kirikos’ rejection of what we believe is a very reasonable compromise proposal regarding a path forward for this WG. That proposal withdraws the request that the poll sought by the co-chairs to assist them in performing their Guideline duties be anonymous, and accepts consideration of his proposal (subject to WG support) for a facilitated session in which maximum participation of WG members will be encouraged. A review of the transcript of the January 18th call held between the co-chairs shows that there was no agreement on every element of a path forward, only an agreement to vet the concept of a facilitated session with the full WG. As noted from page 32 of the transcript, Mr. Kirikos - at least at the time of the second call - seemed to accept such way to move forward[1]. Notwithstanding Mr. Kirikos’ decision to reject our compromise offer and continue his section 3.7 appeal, the co-chairs continue to encourage feedback from other members on our proposal and thank those who have already responded. ICANN 61 is just five weeks away, and the co-chairs are concerned that further substantial delay in resolving the 3.7 appeal will make it logistically impossible to secure the assistance of a community facilitator for the WG’s session there if there is overall WG support for that approach. We will therefore request that staff provide the GNSO Council Chair with a copy of our compromise proposal, copies of Mr. Kirikos’ email responses on the WG list, a copy of this further response from the co-chairs, and copies of feedback on our proposal from other WG members -- along with a request from the co-chairs that the Council Chair or her designated representative decide his appeal as expeditiously as possible. Those materials will make clear that the issue of an anonymous poll is no longer in dispute, and that the appeal is now confined to an objection to the co-chairs’ exercise of their discretion to utilize a public and transparent poll of WG members to assist us in proposing consensus levels and initiate the consensus call process recommended in section 3.6 of the Guidelines, as well as address any potential allegations of WG “capture”. We thank WG members for their continued patience and feedback, and hope we can resume WG activities and complete our work as soon as possible and thereby conclude final recommendations on the topics of our WG. Regards, Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth [1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that” 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] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that”

3 3

Statement from the Co-Chairs
by Corwin, Philip Feb. 3, 2018

Feb. 3, 2018

The co-chairs are extremely disappointed by Mr. Kirikos' rejection of what we believe is a very reasonable compromise proposal regarding a path forward for this WG. That proposal withdraws the request that the poll sought by the co-chairs to assist them in performing their Guideline duties be anonymous, and accepts consideration of his proposal (subject to WG support) for a facilitated session in which maximum participation of WG members will be encouraged. A review of the transcript of the January 18th call held between the co-chairs shows that there was no agreement on every element of a path forward, only an agreement to vet the concept of a facilitated session with the full WG. As noted from page 32 of the transcript, Mr. Kirikos - at least at the time of the second call - seemed to accept such way to move forward[1]. Notwithstanding Mr. Kirikos' decision to reject our compromise offer and continue his section 3.7 appeal, the co-chairs continue to encourage feedback from other members on our proposal and thank those who have already responded. ICANN 61 is just five weeks away, and the co-chairs are concerned that further substantial delay in resolving the 3.7 appeal will make it logistically impossible to secure the assistance of a community facilitator for the WG's session there if there is overall WG support for that approach. We will therefore request that staff provide the GNSO Council Chair with a copy of our compromise proposal, copies of Mr. Kirikos' email responses on the WG list, a copy of this further response from the co-chairs, and copies of feedback on our proposal from other WG members -- along with a request from the co-chairs that the Council Chair or her designated representative decide his appeal as expeditiously as possible. Those materials will make clear that the issue of an anonymous poll is no longer in dispute, and that the appeal is now confined to an objection to the co-chairs' exercise of their discretion to utilize a public and transparent poll of WG members to assist us in proposing consensus levels and initiate the consensus call process recommended in section 3.6 of the Guidelines, as well as address any potential allegations of WG "capture". We thank WG members for their continued patience and feedback, and hope we can resume WG activities and complete our work as soon as possible and thereby conclude final recommendations on the topics of our WG. Regards, Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth [1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): "...And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that" 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] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): "...And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that"

2 1

Update on appeal filed under Section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines
by Mary Wong Feb. 1, 2018

Feb. 1, 2018

Dear all, For your information, the second call between George Kirikos (who filed the appeal under Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and Working Group co-chairs Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth took place on Thursday 18 January. Also on the call were Paul Keating and Paul Tattersfield (Working Group members who supported George’s appeal) and ICANN Ombudsman Herb Waye (in an observer capacity). The recording and transcript of the call can be found on the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/iAS8B. On the call, agreement was reached to take the suggestion of requesting a facilitator’s assistance to the Working Group. Staff has completed our action item from the call, which was to advise the GNSO Council leadership and Working Group liaison to remove the planned agenda item concerning Phil’s and Petter’s December 2017 request from the Council’s 30 January meeting agenda. We confirm that the Council’s agenda has been amended accordingly. We believe Phil and Petter will follow up with everyone on the mailing list. Thanks and cheers Mary and Steve

6 6

FW: [gnso-rpm-wg] Mediation
by Corwin, Philip Jan. 30, 2018

Jan. 30, 2018

George: The co-chairs have developed a proposed path forward for WG consideration and feedback that includes a facilitated session. We are waiting on staff review to make sure that it is procedurally and logistically sound. Hopefully that will go out in the next 24 hours to all WG members. There's been some slight delay due to staff being engaged in internal ICANN meetings last week. Best, Philip 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

Is the INGO Identifier List subject to revisions?
by Paul Tattersfield Jan. 25, 2018

Jan. 25, 2018

Is the recently published INGO Identifier List subject to revisions? https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ingo-iden… A cursory look shows names like gong karp mosaic rare restored witness Gong is an acronym for Gradani organizirano nadgledaju glasan Karp is an acronym for The Korean Association of Retired Persons Moisaic is a branding for More Mosaic NGO & Mosaic International NGO Including rare, restored & witness doesn't sit well with the principal of coexistence. Best regards, Paul.

7 14

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
by Mary Wong Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear George, This note is to confirm that staff will be going ahead to schedule the call between you, Phil and Petter soon, although it will not be before next week. Next Thursday is certainly a possibility, so thank you for the suggestion. As highlighted previously, the call will be recorded and the ICANN Ombudsman invited to attend as an observer. In line with the message from Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, sent to this mailing list on 24 December 2017, if other PDP Working Group members supporting George’s invocation of Section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, please let us know so that we can be sure to send you the call details. Thanks and cheers Mary On 1/2/18, 08:39, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: I'm just following up on the emails of December 21, 2017. Is the Thursday January 4, 2018 date and 12:00 noon (Eastern time) time, corresponding to the usual IGO PDP conference call date/time acceptable? If not, I'd suggest the following week (Thursday January 11, 2018 at 12:00 noon Eastern time) as an alternative. Please advise before the end of the business day today. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&… On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of > interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to > proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call > scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would > make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made > open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular > meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to > me. > > I of course do not withdraw the appeal. > > I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I > sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please > explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or > even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't > have 2 days ago? > > Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have > the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure > that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please > ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO > Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so > that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency > and accountability mechanisms. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&… > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the >> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the >> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated >> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the >> GNSO Working Group Guidelines >> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…) >> That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes >> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted … >> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that >> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request >> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering >> Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this >> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January >> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that >> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working >> Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be >> invited to sit in on the call. >> >> >> >> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that >> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group >> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the >> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of >> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the >> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO >> Policy Development Processes. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as >> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we >> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. >> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a >> withdrawal of your appeal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philip and Petter >> >>

10 25

Response from Working Group co-chairs to George Kirikos' written submission
by Mary Wong Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear all, This email is being sent by staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, co-chairs of this Working Group. As part of the procedural agreement that was reached on the call between George, Phil and Petter last Thursday 11 January (also attended by Paul Keating, Paul Tattersfield and ICANN Ombudsman Herb Waye as an observer), a deadline of 1800 UTC today (Tuesday 16 January) was agreed for Phil and Petter to respond in writing to George’s written submission from Thursday. Staff confirms that a written response was sent to George before this deadline. A copy of that response is attached for your reference. A further call has been scheduled for this Thursday between the parties concerned. As was done with the call last week, this call will also be recorded and the recording and transcript posted to the Working Group wiki space. Cheers Mary and Steve On 1/11/18, 10:44, "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: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIBaQ&… On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 > January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. > (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was > sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to > attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the > relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. > > Have a nice weekend! > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIBaQ&…

3 2

The Length of this PDP and Bringing Things To a Close (was Re: Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs)
by George Kirikos Jan. 13, 2018

Jan. 13, 2018

Hi folks, (1) For those concerned about the length of this PDP, I'd like to point out that it was proposed (by me) that we had fulfilled our mandate as of December 2014 (that's not a typo), see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000220.html when the *existing* workaround (assignee, licensee, agent) was documented. What have we really accomplished since that date, other than fill in the details related to that primary finding? (2) Much energy recently has been spent dealing with the "quirk of process" regarding availability of court access to registrants who want judicial review on the merits of the dispute. Anything we do in that regard *must* be within the scope of our charter. If you've not read the Appeal PDF that I posted 2 days ago: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-January/001035.html take a look at point 19 which starts near the bottom of page 11 (you can skip the rest, if you'd like). It takes less than 1 minute to read that point (it's less than a page long). If that point is correct, then all of that quirk of process discussion for registrants is *not* even within the scope of our Charter, and is properly directed to the RPM PDP (which can deal with the impact on *registrants* in the same manner as the Yoyo.email UK Cause of Action issue, which has essentially the same root cause, the role reversal of plaintiff/defendants). I repeat, the work of this PDP ***as it relates to IGOs*** was completed in 2014! Do we have a consensus on this? If so, wrap things up. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a > purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents > have refused to participate in the WG > > Agreed and we also have > > A draft report with basic avoidable errors > An expert’s report that isn’t even relevant to the WG’s charter > A (nearly?) final report that incorrectly applies the expert’s findings > > And a proposed recommendation for an arbitration mechanism which will > probably never be used as it is limited to cases that require a quirk of > process as the result of a combination of a bad judge, an incompetent lawyer > and no appeal. > > > And to get that proposed recommendation into the report? > > We’re waiting a week for a written rebuttal/approval of oral testimony which > hasn’t been heard yet, so some who is supposed to be informed can workout > how to defend a position in the absence of guidance from above once the oral > reasoning is delivered. > > You couldn't make it up. > > Best regards, > > > Paul. > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: >> >> Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And >> "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The >> entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported >> problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have >> refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an >> anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody >> should be inputting anonymous views into the process now. >> >> Mike Rodenbaugh >> RODENBAUGH LAW >> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 >> http://rodenbaugh.com >> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher(a)pir.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure >>> >>> >>> >>> David W. Maher >>> >>> Public Interest Registry >>> >>> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy >>> >>> +1 312 375 4849 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] >>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM >>> To: David W. Maher <dmaher(a)pir.org> >>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO >>> Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> >>> >>> Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Mike Rodenbaugh >>> >>> RODENBAUGH LAW >>> >>> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 >>> >>> http://rodenbaugh.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher(a)pir.org> wrote: >>> >>> I support the use of an anonymous poll. >>> >>> David W. Maher >>> >>> Public Interest Registry >>> >>> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy >>> >>> +1 312 375 4849 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On >>> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh >>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM >>> To: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> >>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO >>> Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an >>> anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, >>> so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. >>> >>> >>> Mike Rodenbaugh >>> >>> RODENBAUGH LAW >>> >>> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 >>> >>> http://rodenbaugh.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> wrote: >>> >>> My 2 cents. >>> >>> >>> >>> Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on >>> resolution. >>> >>> >>> >>> The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. >>> The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part >>> which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. >>> >>> >>> >>> What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute >>> informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an >>> effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the >>> appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be >>> created. >>> >>> The result was a continued delay of the matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the >>> process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling >>> is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent >>> actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and >>> transparent manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> As said, my 2 cents. >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul Keating >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> >>> The call transcript can be found at >>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Disc… >>> >>> For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was >>> "interrupted immediately". >>> >>> What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 >>> footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the >>> call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to >>> the call. >>> >>> When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the >>> length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, >>> the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after >>> conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in >>> writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be >>> noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On >>> Behalf Of George Kirikos >>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM >>> To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the >>> IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling >>> within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my >>> presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged >>> down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. >>> >>> https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group >>> >>> [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and >>> audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the >>> bottom).] >>> >>> Have a nice weekend! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> >>> >>> In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis >>> >>> of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as >>> >>> previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> >>> 416-588-0269 >>> >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> >>> Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 >>> >>> January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. >>> >>> (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was >>> >>> sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to >>> >>> attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the >>> >>> relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. >>> >>> >>> >>> Have a nice weekend! >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> >>> 416-588-0269 >>> >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with UDRP/URS
by George Kirikos Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

Hi folks, There was an interesting article published today about a copyright dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube: https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyri… which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 Of particular interest for the IGO PDP is the section on "Counter Notification Basics": https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 where importantly it says: "After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content down." and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919 ""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant." If a comparable procedure were followed in a modified UDRP/URS procedure, this would completely solve the "quirk of process" we've been tackling, i.e. where the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the UDRP/URS not existed) gets reversed if a registrant is forced to seek redress in the courts. Instead, the trademark holder (or the IGO, or the complainant in the UDRP/URS) would be filing the lawsuit in court. This also solves the closely related "cause of action" issue in the UK courts re: Yoyo.email, etc. (and thus I posted the same article for discussion on the RPM PDP mailing list), which arises due to the same role reversal of plaintiff/defendant. Of course, it might be best to handle all these interrelated issues simultaneously (and that's why there's been support behind Zak's proposal that this "quirk of process" issue be handled via the RPM PDP, instead of "piecemeal" for IGOs only). Food for thought. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0