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

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July
by Paul Keating Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

All, There is an error in my email below. I wrote NGO when obviously I meant to reference IGOs. Please accept my apologies. Below is a corrected version that I would like to be included in the record in replacement of the original. Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in N. Amer. that have me working the phone most days from 5pm onwards. I have another call tonight so I will not be able to make it. I remain in favor of the following principals A. That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the ³Mutual Jurisdiction² the complainant (including the IGO) is waiving any objection to jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction. B. That by relying upon ³trademark² rights the complainant is by definition admitting to a commercial activity. C. There has been no evidence that IGOs have refrained from filing a UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity. D. IGOs have in the past filed UDRPs evidence that the Mutual Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor. * Assertions of phishing are merely that assertions. Assertions are not evidence. E. IGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or other legal) forum e.g. by assignment, etc. * Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law enforcement on behalf of the IGO. F. That if the IGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated. I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which is summarized here: 1. The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in which: a. Notice and service of process was simplified no confirmation of notice is required. b. Filings are limited by page/word length. c. Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity d. Assertions are often treated as evidence. e. There is no ³precedent² value and panelists are neither required nor inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions. 2. Section 4(k) was a material part of the bargain to permit a losing registrant the right to challenge the matter before a real court under real rules guarantying due process. 3. IGOs were certainly around at the time. Their input was heard. The UDRP was nevertheless established with the blessing of WIPO I might add. 4. There is no concrete way to establish what constitutes an IGO. IGOs come in a variety of shapes, sizes and qualities. Some are expressly not recognized by nation states. This in turn rises substantial issues of proof- which in the context of the limited administrative nature of the UDRP is inappropriate. 5. The UDRP is a contractually created process mandated by ICANN. All registrants must agree to application of the UDRP (or similar ADR) as a condition to registration. The UDRP Policy itself is not based upon recognized jurisprudence and is constantly shifting in meaning and scope as panelists seek to further streamline the process by largely ignoring the express language of the Policy. It also obligates the registrant to abide by an ever-changing landscape of trademarks (e.g. registration and use of a domain name in PPC followed by a later trademark registration would place the registrant at risk of losing the domain name because PPC use is rarely recognized and at least a minority of panelists continue to apply retroactive standards such as those found in MummyGold and other decisions attempting to retroactively apply Paragraph 2 to the Policy). 6. Trademark rights have been proscribed to a ³standing² requirement that presents no meaningful condition. 7. The requirement that the trademark be ³identical or confusingly similar² to the asserted trademark has been proscribed such that the condition is met whenever the trademark appears (in whole or significant part) in the domain name. Thus, for example, the rule supports finding that the domain name ³the.com² is confusingly similar to a trademark for ³Theatre² because the letter sequence ³the² appears in both. 8. Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant¹s use of the domain name. UDRP Appeals Process. I have forwarded a prior email to Mr. Beckman and the WG on the subject of a UDRP appeal process organized and managed in a manner similar to the DRS process at Nominet. This is not a change of position as I favor an appeals process for all UDRP participants. As I stated in my communications, such an appeals process is not a replacement of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdiction certification. Instead it should be an economical means of correcting poorly reasoned decisions by inexperienced or biased panelists economical in that it limits those situations in which the parties must spend tens of thousands of dollars in litigation. I strongly disfavor any appeals process that would be unique to IGOs or that would remove the protections of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdictional certification. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:30 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: George Kirikos <george(a)loffs.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July > Mary and fellow WG members, > > > Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in > North America that have me working the phone most daystar 8am conference calls > (which for me being in Barcelona - begin at 5pm onwards. I have another > client call tonight so I will not be able to make the call today. > > > Please make the following known to the group and retain it in the WG records > > > > I remain in favor of the following principals > > A. That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the ³Mutual > Jurisdiction² the complainant (including the NGO) is waiving any objection to > jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction. > > > > B. That by relying upon ³trademark² rights the complainant is by > definition admitting to a commercial activity. > > > C. There has been no evidence that NGOs have refrained from filing a > UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity. > > > > D. NGOs have in the past filed UDRPs evidence that the Mutual > Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor. > > > * Assertions of phishing are merely that assertions. Assertions are not > evidence. > > E. NGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or > other legal) forum e.g. by assignment, etc. > > > > * Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law > enforcement on behalf of the NGO. > > F. That if the NGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post > UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated. > > > I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which > is summarized here: > > 1. The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in > which: > > > a. Notice and service of process was simplified no confirmation of notice > is required. > > b. Filings are limited by page/word length. > > c. Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity > > d. Assertions are often treated as evidence. > > e. There is no ³precedent² value and panelists are neither required nor > inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions. > > > > 2. Section 4(k) was a material part of the bargain to permit a > losing registrant the right to challenge the matter before a real court under > real rules guarantying due process. > > > > 3. NGOs were certainly around at the time. Their input was heard. > The UDRP was nevertheless established with the blessing of WIPO I might add. > > > 4. There is no concrete way to establish what constitutes an NGO. > NGOs come in a variety of shapes, sizes and qualities. Some are expressly not > recognized by nation states. This in turn rises substantial issues of proof- > which in the context of the limited administrative nature of the UDRP is > inappropriate. > > > 5. The UDRP is a contractually created process mandated by ICANN. > All registrants must agree to application of the UDRP (or similar ADR) as a > condition to registration. The UDRP Policy itself is not based upon > recognized jurisprudence and is constantly shifting in meaning and scope as > panelists seek to further streamline the process by largely ignoring the > express language of the Policy. It also obligates the registrant to abide by > an ever-changing landscape of trademarks (e.g. registration and use of a > domain name in PPC followed by a later trademark registration would place the > registrant at risk of losing the domain name because PPC use is rarely > recognized and at least a minority of panelists continue to apply retroactive > standards such as those found in MummyGold and other decisions attempting to > retroactively apply Paragraph 2 to the Policy). > > > > 6. Trademark rights have been proscribed to a ³standing² > requirement that presents no meaningful condition. > > > 7. The requirement that the trademark be ³identical or confusingly > similar² to the asserted trademark has been proscribed such that the condition > is met whenever the trademark appears (in whole or significant part) in the > domain name. Thus, for example, the rule supports finding that the domain > name ³the.com² is confusingly similar to a trademark for ³Theatre² because the > letter sequence ³the² appears in both. > > > 8. Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant¹s > use of the domain name. > > > UDRP Appeals Process. > > I have forwarded a prior email to Mr. Beckman and the WG on the subject of a > UDRP appeal process organized and managed in a manner similar to the DRS > process at Nominet. This is not a change of position as I favor an appeals > process for all UDRP participants. > > As I stated in my communications, such an appeals process is not a replacement > of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdiction certification. Instead it should be > an economical means of correcting poorly reasoned decisions by inexperienced > or biased panelists economical in that it limits those situations in which > the parties must spend tens of thousands of dollars in litigation. > > I strongly disfavor any appeals process that would be unique to NGOs or that > would remove the protections of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdictional > certification.

4 4

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July
by Paul Keating Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Mary and fellow WG members, Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in North America that have me working the phone most daystar 8am conference calls (which for me being in Barcelona - begin at 5pm onwards. I have another client call tonight so I will not be able to make the call today. Please make the following known to the group and retain it in the WG records I remain in favor of the following principals A. That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the ³Mutual Jurisdiction² the complainant (including the NGO) is waiving any objection to jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction. B. That by relying upon ³trademark² rights the complainant is by definition admitting to a commercial activity. C. There has been no evidence that NGOs have refrained from filing a UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity. D. NGOs have in the past filed UDRPs evidence that the Mutual Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor. * Assertions of phishing are merely that assertions. Assertions are not evidence. E. NGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or other legal) forum e.g. by assignment, etc. * Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law enforcement on behalf of the NGO. F. That if the NGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated. I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which is summarized here: 1. The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in which: a. Notice and service of process was simplified no confirmation of notice is required. b. Filings are limited by page/word length. c. Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity d. Assertions are often treated as evidence. e. There is no ³precedent² value and panelists are neither required nor inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions. 2. Section 4(k) was a material part of the bargain to permit a losing registrant the right to challenge the matter before a real court under real rules guarantying due process. 3. NGOs were certainly around at the time. Their input was heard. The UDRP was nevertheless established with the blessing of WIPO I might add. 4. There is no concrete way to establish what constitutes an NGO. NGOs come in a variety of shapes, sizes and qualities. Some are expressly not recognized by nation states. This in turn rises substantial issues of proof- which in the context of the limited administrative nature of the UDRP is inappropriate. 5. The UDRP is a contractually created process mandated by ICANN. All registrants must agree to application of the UDRP (or similar ADR) as a condition to registration. The UDRP Policy itself is not based upon recognized jurisprudence and is constantly shifting in meaning and scope as panelists seek to further streamline the process by largely ignoring the express language of the Policy. It also obligates the registrant to abide by an ever-changing landscape of trademarks (e.g. registration and use of a domain name in PPC followed by a later trademark registration would place the registrant at risk of losing the domain name because PPC use is rarely recognized and at least a minority of panelists continue to apply retroactive standards such as those found in MummyGold and other decisions attempting to retroactively apply Paragraph 2 to the Policy). 6. Trademark rights have been proscribed to a ³standing² requirement that presents no meaningful condition. 7. The requirement that the trademark be ³identical or confusingly similar² to the asserted trademark has been proscribed such that the condition is met whenever the trademark appears (in whole or significant part) in the domain name. Thus, for example, the rule supports finding that the domain name ³the.com² is confusingly similar to a trademark for ³Theatre² because the letter sequence ³the² appears in both. 8. Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant¹s use of the domain name. UDRP Appeals Process. I have forwarded a prior email to Mr. Beckman and the WG on the subject of a UDRP appeal process organized and managed in a manner similar to the DRS process at Nominet. This is not a change of position as I favor an appeals process for all UDRP participants. As I stated in my communications, such an appeals process is not a replacement of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdiction certification. Instead it should be an economical means of correcting poorly reasoned decisions by inexperienced or biased panelists economical in that it limits those situations in which the parties must spend tens of thousands of dollars in litigation. I strongly disfavor any appeals process that would be unique to NGOs or that would remove the protections of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdictional certification.

1 0

Proposed agenda for upcoming Working Group call on Thursday 16 November
by Mary Wong Nov. 14, 2017

Nov. 14, 2017

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for our next call, scheduled for this Thursday 16 November at 1700 UTC: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Review feedback from open community session at ICANN60, and GAC Communique 3. Discuss possible relevance of the Nominet appeal process 4. Next steps – process for determining final consensus call and timeline For Agenda Item #2, please review the transcript and/or recording of the ICANN60 session here: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFM/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…; as well as the GAC Communique from Abu Dhabi here: https://gac.icann.org/advice/communiques/public/gac-60-abu-dhabi-communique… (the section relevant to IGO protections is under Section VII, on pages 9-10). For Agenda Item #3, please refer to the links in the message below, with particular reference to Paragraph 20 of the Nominet Dispute Resolution Policy (staff is attempting to find more specific background/information on the appeals process referenced by Paul Keating). Finally, in terms of a timeline to completion, the co-chairs and staff are proposing the following steps: * Staff will aim to complete a draft Final Report for circulation by 24 November – to allow everyone a week to review the changes that were made from the Initial Report * The draft can be discussed on the next scheduled call after the one being held this week – this will be 30 November (since 23 November is the Thanksgiving holiday in the USA) * The Working Group may take 2-3 meetings to review the updated language of the draft, especially focusing on the text of the proposed final recommendations. The formal Consensus Call for all proposed final recommendations can be launched in mid-December or at the latest before Christmas, closing in early January 2018. * The Final Report to the GNSO Council can be submitted by end-January 2018. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, November 10, 2017 at 01:41 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: IGO "appeals" in ICANN CRP WG Dear all, Please find below an email from Paul Keating (forwarded to this mailing list with his permission), concerning the possibility that the appeals process deployed by Nominet may be helpfully considered by the Working Group in relation to Options A-C. You may recall that Paul’s suggestion was brought up during the group’s open community session at ICANN60, so we are providing his full email for further context. In addition, you may wish to review the following links: * Nominet FAQ on its dispute resolution process: https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolving-uk-domain-disputes-and-complaints/ * Paragraph 20 of the Policy: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/… * Paragraph 18 of the Procedure: https://nominet-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DRS_Proced… Staff is attempting to locate more specific details and provisions for the Nominet appeals procedure, and we will forward that information if we are able to find it. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 22:18 To: "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: IGO "appeals" in ICANN CRP WG Brian, I will not make the call most likely but please share this with the group publicly. As i said, my first position is that should an IGO successfully move to dismiss a post-UDRP action based upon SI, the underlying UDRP should be vitiated. My distant second position is a post UDRP Nominet-like appeals process. The appeals panelists should be carefully selected and I would require specific training and a more “law” based process that avoids the watered down analysis now prevalent in the UDRP, PARTICULARLY when it comes to the 1st element which would require a more traditional trademark infringement test honoring the actual language of the Policy. Btw, I had suggested an alternative based upon my perception that IGOs concern was mainly to do with possible monetary judgments. The suggestion was to prohibit a SI claim if the respondent in turn waived any claim to monetary damages. This would be a small price to pay as most such judgments are virtually uncollectible at any rate. This was not adopted largely because it would work only if the IGO signed a separate waiver as a part of the UDRP process - an unlikely prospect. I hope you are enjoying AD. Be well, Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 1 Nov 2017, at 11:35, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Hi Paul, Picking up on your comment at the WIPO Workshop last week, we mentioned to IGO WG co-chairs Phil and Petter, your comment about (and if I understood, receptiveness to) the possibility of a "Nominet-like" appeals avenue for IGOs in a curative ("UDRP-like") dispute resolution mechanism. We (WIPO) are in a separate conflicting meeting today, but on the suggestion of the WG co-chairs, wonder if you might see fit to raise your comment/question in today's IGO WG session? I am also including the co-chairs and ICANN staff on this email in case they would see fit to forward this email to the WG. (Of course, as I stated, most recently at the IGO WG session in Johannesburg, this specific "appeals avenue" would not eclipse court options generally.) Best regards, Brian

2 1

FW: IGO "appeals" in ICANN CRP WG
by Mary Wong Nov. 9, 2017

Nov. 9, 2017

Dear all, Please find below an email from Paul Keating (forwarded to this mailing list with his permission), concerning the possibility that the appeals process deployed by Nominet may be helpfully considered by the Working Group in relation to Options A-C. You may recall that Paul’s suggestion was brought up during the group’s open community session at ICANN60, so we are providing his full email for further context. In addition, you may wish to review the following links: * Nominet FAQ on its dispute resolution process: https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolving-uk-domain-disputes-and-complaints/ * Paragraph 20 of the Policy: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/… * Paragraph 18 of the Procedure: https://nominet-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DRS_Proced… Staff is attempting to locate more specific details and provisions for the Nominet appeals procedure, and we will forward that information if we are able to find it. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 22:18 To: "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: IGO "appeals" in ICANN CRP WG Brian, I will not make the call most likely but please share this with the group publicly. As i said, my first position is that should an IGO successfully move to dismiss a post-UDRP action based upon SI, the underlying UDRP should be vitiated. My distant second position is a post UDRP Nominet-like appeals process. The appeals panelists should be carefully selected and I would require specific training and a more “law” based process that avoids the watered down analysis now prevalent in the UDRP, PARTICULARLY when it comes to the 1st element which would require a more traditional trademark infringement test honoring the actual language of the Policy. Btw, I had suggested an alternative based upon my perception that IGOs concern was mainly to do with possible monetary judgments. The suggestion was to prohibit a SI claim if the respondent in turn waived any claim to monetary damages. This would be a small price to pay as most such judgments are virtually uncollectible at any rate. This was not adopted largely because it would work only if the IGO signed a separate waiver as a part of the UDRP process - an unlikely prospect. I hope you are enjoying AD. Be well, Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 1 Nov 2017, at 11:35, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Hi Paul, Picking up on your comment at the WIPO Workshop last week, we mentioned to IGO WG co-chairs Phil and Petter, your comment about (and if I understood, receptiveness to) the possibility of a "Nominet-like" appeals avenue for IGOs in a curative ("UDRP-like") dispute resolution mechanism. We (WIPO) are in a separate conflicting meeting today, but on the suggestion of the WG co-chairs, wonder if you might see fit to raise your comment/question in today's IGO WG session? I am also including the co-chairs and ICANN staff on this email in case they would see fit to forward this email to the WG. (Of course, as I stated, most recently at the IGO WG session in Johannesburg, this specific "appeals avenue" would not eclipse court options generally.) Best regards, Brian

1 0

Change in Status
by Phil Corwin Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Dear WG Members: I have today, November 6, 2017, terminated all operations of the Virtualaw LLC consultancy and commenced employment in the legal department of Verisign, Inc. in the position of Policy Counsel. I intend to continue in my co-chair position, and will update my SOI prior to our next call. With best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

GAC advice on IGO protections
by Mary Wong Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Dear Working Group members, The GAC Communique from ICANN60 has just been published, and includes the following advice on IGO protections: “The GAC recalls its longstanding advice on the topic of IGO protections and is closely monitoring the ongoing PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms. The GAC remains open to working with the GNSO to try to find a mutually-agreeable resolution to this issue. The GAC also recalls the values of openness, transparency and inclusion, and representativeness and process integrity, that are respectively enshrined in ICANN’s Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures. a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to: i. review closely the decisions on this issue in order to ensure that they are compatible with these values and reflect the full factual record. RATIONALE Although the ICANN Community is still awaiting the final report for the PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, preliminary communications indicate that the Working Group’s proposal will conflict with GAC advice on the issue and GAC input to the PDP as well as the comments of over 20 IGOs who submitted comments to the Working Group’s draft report. The Board plays an important role in ensuring the proper application of the ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures, and the GAC expects that a basic safeguard would be a close Board review of GNSO policy recommendations, especially where such recommendations directly contradict GAC advice.” The full Communique can be viewed here: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN60%20Comm… Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

Number of IGO cases brought under the UDRP
by George Kirikos Nov. 1, 2017

Nov. 1, 2017

Hi folks, During today's call, there was some question about the number of UDRPs brought by IGOs historically. I stated it was "less than a dozen over the past 20 years" in the chat, but Brian Beckham of WIPO asserted it was just 2. The long Footnote 5 at the bottom of page 79 of our initial report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf which continues at the bottom of page 80, identified more than 2 cases, and less than a dozen: "Respectively, in International Mobile Satellite Organisation and Inmarsat Ventures Limited (formerly known as Inmarsat Holdings Limited) v. Domains, EntreDomains Inc. and Brian Evans, D2000-1339 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000); International Bank For Reconstruction and Development d/b/a The World Bank v. Yoo Jin Sohn, D2002-0222 (WIPO May 7, 2002); and Bank for International Settlements v. BFIS, D2003-0984 (WIPO March 1, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. BIS, D2003-0986 (WIPO March 2, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. James Elliott, D2003-0987 (WIPO March 3, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. G.I Joe, D2004-0570 (WIPO (Sept. 27, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. BIS, D2004-0571 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2004), and Bank for International Settlements v. Fortune Nwaiwu, D2004-0575 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2004). A few other matters are catalogued in the Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions, http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex/, as involving IGOs. In one, involving the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), a decentralized agency of the European Union, the complaint was denied due to its failure to establish rights to marks or services. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) v. Virtual Clicks / Registrant ID:CR36884430, Registration Private Domains by Proxy, Inc., D2010-0475 (WIPO July 7, 2010). In another, involving UNITAID, an IGO hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO), trademark rights were assigned by a fiduciary agreement to a private enterprise, which registered them on behalf of the WHO and UNITAID. Lenz & Staehelin Ltd v. Christopher Mikkelsen, D2012-1922 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2013)." As has been the case before during this PDP, the WIPO representative doesn't have his facts straight. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO PDP and ICANN 60
by Mary Wong Oct. 29, 2017

Oct. 29, 2017

Hello everyone, Thanks to George for sending around a reminder of the session details, which the GNSO Secretariat had also sent around some time ago. Please note that, for sessions held at ICANN Public Meetings, the Secretariat generally does not send the usual calendar invitations as the phone bridge and Adobe Connect rooms are set up differently. If you’d like to attend other GNSO-related sessions at ICANN60, the remote participation details can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/7ichB and the main ICANN meeting schedule is at: https://schedule.icann.org/ Please also find attached the slides that Phil and Petter will be using today for the Working Group update to the GNSO Council – the brief deck includes a slide summarizing the results of the survey, more details of which will be circulated in time for the next Working Group meeting to be held after ICANN60. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> Date: Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 01:16 To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO PDP and ICANN 60 :-0 You are way ahead of the curve....... Sent from my iPad On 27 Oct 2017, at 23:11, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, I'm a bit old-fashioned in my scheduling technology, relying on trusty paper-based schedules (more advanced technology than rocks or papyrus, though!). Perhaps someone else will add them to Google Calendar, and can create invites, though. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMGaQ&…> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: Excellent work george. I am traveling and not able to go but will try to participate online. If you added them as calendar items can you include me as an invitee? It would be great if staff would do this. Sent from my iPad On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:15, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, Since there's been little to no discussion about the imminent ICANN 60 meeting, and scheduled events that impact our PDP, I went through the posted schedule myself to try to determine which meetings might be of interest to our work. The entire schedule is at: https://schedule.icann.org/[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…> Below, I added the starting times for Toronto/NYC (8 hour time difference apparently), but others might want to make their own adjustments based on the published schedule, converting from Abu Dhabi time (those on Pacific time might see the date change when converting time, for example, so be careful!) I also added the telephone dial-in number for Canada/USA (i.e. it seems to be our usual number). All the dial-ins are listed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN60+GNSO+Remote…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Here's what I found that might be of interest: (1) Sunday, October 29, 2:30 am Toronto/NYC time, [10:30 am - 11 am Abu Dhabi time], GNSO Working Session, IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection (CRP) Mechanisms Working Group Update, the first half hour of the 90 minute session; presumably the PDP co-chairs will be updating the GNSO council on our progress https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbId/gnso-working-session[schedule.icann.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hallbc [Hall B, Sec B/C] Pass Code = Update 2, Dial-in = 866-692-5726 [for Canada/USA] (2) Sunday, October 29, 7:15 am Toronto/NYC time, [15:15 - 16:15 Abu Dhabi time], Joint Meeting, GAC & GNSO https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbI1/joint-meeting-gac-gnso[schedule.icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> No agenda, but IGO stuff might come up Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall3 [Hall 3] No telephone audio bridge apparently. (3) Tuesday, October 31, 2:30 am Toronto/NYC time, [10:30am - 11 am Abu Dhabi time] GAC Discussion on IGOs and Red Cross Red Crescent Protections https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIE/gac-discussion-on-igos-and-red-cross-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall3 [Hall 3] No telephone audio bridge apparently. (4) Wednesday November 1, 9 am Toronto/NYC time, [17:00-18:30 Abu Dhabi time], IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFM/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve…> No agenda yet, but this is supposed to be our "regular" call. Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite3 [Capital Suite 03] Pass Code = IGO, Dial-in = 866-692-5726 [for Canada/USA] If I missed anything, please add to this list. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMGaQ&…> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

IGO PDP and ICANN 60
by George Kirikos Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

Hi folks, Since there's been little to no discussion about the imminent ICANN 60 meeting, and scheduled events that impact our PDP, I went through the posted schedule myself to try to determine which meetings might be of interest to our work. The entire schedule is at: https://schedule.icann.org/ Below, I added the starting times for Toronto/NYC (8 hour time difference apparently), but others might want to make their own adjustments based on the published schedule, converting from Abu Dhabi time (those on Pacific time might see the date change when converting time, for example, so be careful!) I also added the telephone dial-in number for Canada/USA (i.e. it seems to be our usual number). All the dial-ins are listed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN60+GNSO+Remote… Here's what I found that might be of interest: (1) Sunday, October 29, 2:30 am Toronto/NYC time, [10:30 am - 11 am Abu Dhabi time], GNSO Working Session, IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection (CRP) Mechanisms Working Group Update, the first half hour of the 90 minute session; presumably the PDP co-chairs will be updating the GNSO council on our progress https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbId/gnso-working-session https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio… Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hallbc [Hall B, Sec B/C] Pass Code = Update 2, Dial-in = 866-692-5726 [for Canada/USA] (2) Sunday, October 29, 7:15 am Toronto/NYC time, [15:15 - 16:15 Abu Dhabi time], Joint Meeting, GAC & GNSO https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbI1/joint-meeting-gac-gnso No agenda, but IGO stuff might come up Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall3 [Hall 3] No telephone audio bridge apparently. (3) Tuesday, October 31, 2:30 am Toronto/NYC time, [10:30am - 11 am Abu Dhabi time] GAC Discussion on IGOs and Red Cross Red Crescent Protections https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIE/gac-discussion-on-igos-and-red-cross-… Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall3 [Hall 3] No telephone audio bridge apparently. (4) Wednesday November 1, 9 am Toronto/NYC time, [17:00-18:30 Abu Dhabi time], IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFM/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect… No agenda yet, but this is supposed to be our "regular" call. Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite3 [Capital Suite 03] Pass Code = IGO, Dial-in = 866-692-5726 [for Canada/USA] If I missed anything, please add to this list. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 5

FINAL REMINDER: Survey on Options A-C
by Mary Wong Oct. 23, 2017

Oct. 23, 2017

Dear all, Please note that the survey to gauge preliminary consensus on Options A-C will close today (Monday). Please be sure to indicate your preferred option here if you have not yet had the opportunity to do so: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 12:22 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: REMINDER: Survey on Options A-C CLOSES on Monday Dear Working Group members, This is just a reminder for those who have not yet had a chance to fill in the survey on Options A, B or C to please do so before 1800 UTC on Monday 23 October. Here is the survey link again: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD. As noted below, the survey results will allow Petter and Phil to accurately describe the level of consensus amongst the group for each of the three options when they run the open community session for our PDP at ICANN60 next week. Background materials that may be helpful are provided in the email below. Thank you! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 16, 2017 at 16:39 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C Dear Working Group members, At the direction of the co-chairs and with their approval, staff has prepared the following survey that we are asking all members to fill out by 1800 UTC on Monday 23 October. The purpose of the survey is to enable Phil and Petter to determine the level of preliminary consensus amongst all members for each of the three options under discussion, relating to the situation where a respondent has filed court proceedings against an IGO and the IGO has successfully claimed immunity in that court. As our open community session at ICANN60 will be devoted to a presentation and discussion of all our proposed final recommendations, it is important for Phil and Petter to know which option is the most preferred at this stage. * Link to survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD * Link to background materials: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB (you will find the slides used by Petter and Phil to present all the proposed final recommendations and options during the webinar last week, as well as the most current version of the Options A, B and C document, under Background Documents. Please be sure to review these to familiarize yourself with the full details of the three options). Please note that this survey is not intended to be a formal vote, nor does it replace the mandatory consensus call that will take place on all the final recommendations prior to our submission of the Final Report to the GNSO Council. The co-chairs currently expect the Working Group to finalize all recommendations following community feedback at ICANN60. Please raise any questions or concerns you may have to this mailing list before the survey closes on Monday 23 October. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 1