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

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C
by Mary Wong Oct. 21, 2017

Oct. 21, 2017

Dear Imran, Without highlighting the merits and disadvantages or arguing for or against any specific options, since it will not be appropriate for staff to do so, staff confirms that your conclusion about Option A correctly reflects the understanding of the Working Group. In short, applying Option A when the court case is dismissed because the IGO succeeds in claiming immunity from the court’s jurisdiction will mean that the original UDRP or URS decision will not be enforced – so the domain will remain with the registrant and not transferred to the IGO or canceled. This will mean a different rule applies to IGOs in this specific situation, compared to other situations where the court case is between a registrant and a non-IGO – in these other situations, where the court case is dismissed, the original UDRP and URS decision will stand and be enforced. On your other question, please note that all the three options are independent of one another, so they cannot be combined in their current form. Thus, Option A and B cannot be read together as they are separate solutions. The Working Group discussed the details and consequences of these options over various calls. There were actually more than three options under discussion, and what we now see as Options B and, especially, C went through significant discussion and (in the case of Option C) amendment. The Working Group also conducted an Impact Analysis of all the many options (you can see that Impact Analysis document here: https://community.icann.org/x/mwghB) To gain a full understanding of all the many options and the various discussions over each of them, you would have to review the call recordings or transcripts from August and September. However, if you need a clear summary of what the final three options (A, B and C) are, you can review the materials that we sent out with the poll, i.e. the slides used for last week’s webinar and the final version of the Options Document: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB. I hope this is helpful. The chairs and other Working Group members may wish to add their own comments. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:32 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah <imran(a)uisoc.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C Dear Mary Wong, and Dear All WG Members, Thanks for the Survey and obtaining the opinion of all WG Members. While responding to the Survey, I found that the question asked in the survey is not very much clear, especially when I read the phrase of Option A alone or Option A & Option B together. However, Option C is well elaborated and reader can understand that what is being asked by him. May I ask to update the questions for ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ with some additional detail? Secondly, in Option A, the final statement “….the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated (i.e. set aside.)”, needs to be elaborated further. After consulting it further I reach on the following understanding: Explaining that which of the UDRP decision will be set aside/erased/not given force? Through a consultation, I learned that, this is the result of a success (of IGO) would be to set aside, which was the original UDRP decision. And this reversal would permit the cybersquatting found by the panel to persist. “The current rule is that if a registrant files a judicial appeal and the court case is subsequently dismissed for any reason, then the stay on enforcement for the original UDRP decision is lifted and the domain is transferred or extinguished. Option A would reverse that rule solely for IGOs.” May I ask the Option A proponents to explain it further (if the above explanation is not sufficient), for my understanding and for other members of the WG? Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:39 Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] 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[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r…> * Link to background materials: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> (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 _______________________________________________ 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

6 10

REMINDER: Survey on Options A-C CLOSES on Monday
by Mary Wong Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

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 0

ICANN60: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together a new ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN60 Meeting Schedule[schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/7ichB> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN60 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet for previous meetings, create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule. By clicking to the left of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 At the top right-hand corner of the page click on the ‘Mobile App + ical” icon to download the mobile app and choose from various options how to sync your personalized schedule to your phone or laptop calendars. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C
by Mary Wong Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

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

4 3

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CANCELLED / Meeting Invitation: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 16:00 UTC
by Phil Corwin Oct. 14, 2017

Oct. 14, 2017

By way of explanation, the Co-Chairs have determined that further efforts in this WG require a survey to determine the degree of consensus/opposition that the three options for Recommendation 4 enjoy among WG members. That survey will be distributed next week to inform our F2F meeting and other activities at ICANN 60. Everyone have a great weekend. 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 From: ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:31 AM To: Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CANCELLED / Meeting Invitation: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 16:00 UTC This meeting has been cancelled, please remove it from your calendars. Dear all, The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call will take place on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yd7ax8x9 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8YZEB Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://participate.icann.org/crp For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

4 3

MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP Webinar on Thursday, 12 October 2017
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2017

Oct. 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance attached, MP3 recording, AC recording and AC chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Webinar held on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-12oct17-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-12oct17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2mzy163wkb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812 eb19f72c46929374e3ff7948a26ef4dfdf6de2363e5902f4> https://participate.icann.org/p2mzy163wkb/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB> https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 12 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Webinar on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes . Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_6 4ZEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 64ZEB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8_8f2XAPJ8 &s=Y2oSnKkApgEsLpjzh99wXc5q_JNMwvqlQj4nW6GsL80&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8_8f2XAPJ8&s=Y2 oSnKkApgEsLpjzh99wXc5q_JNMwvqlQj4nW6GsL80&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Mary Wong:14 counting title slide and the Questions slide :) Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all! George Kirikos:Can the slides be unlocked? Mary Wong:@George, we are keeping them locked at the moment, to enable the presenters to go through them (unless otherwise instructed by the co-chairs). Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late Osvaldo Novoa:Can the presentation be downloadable? George Kirikos:i.e. initial recommendation was Article 6ter registration was PROOF (sufficient) of TM rights; new recommendation is that Article 6ter registration is EVIDENCE of rights. Mary Wong:@Osvaldo, we will circulate the slides and post them to the Working Group wiki space after this call. George Kirikos:The 1st prong of the UDRP is so low, though, so it should make no practical difference. UDRPs are usually decided on the 2nd and 3rd prongs. George Kirikos:We had 6 options, ultimately. But, now distilled into 3. :-) George Kirikos:Since much of the call for a new procedure was based on the introduction of new gTLDs, Option B reflects a compromise, targeting the new Option C to newly created domains only. James Bladel:Just an aside, but PDP WGs need to avoid terms like "vitiated." George Kirikos:@James: right, we've suggested other language, e.g. "set aside". George Kirikos:I think in the final report, it'll be wordsmithed better. James Bladel:I'm a native English speaker with advanced degrees, and Ihad to look it up. I'm not a poet, but that's a good barometer that it's going to pose a problem for translation, etc. George Kirikos:Good point, James. Are all the policies being translated now into the 6 UN languages? James Bladel:@GK - The Final report will be translated, but not sure about all 6. If the language makes it in to a standard contact (RAA/RA), it will also need Mandarin. And changes to the UDRP might also be reflected in the languaes of paenlists (which include Czech and....I forget where the Asia Dispute Center is located. Korean, perhaps?). George Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adndrc.org_ mten_index.php&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2 dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8 _8f2XAPJ8&s=bQbrEIK9RWwI-6htuYE-WhmNoZBnVFK1hqJb2LBXqKM&e= :-) Brian Beckham - WIPO:Petter, can you clarify, if I read Option A correctly: if an IGO "wins" its UDRP case, and "wins" in asserting its immunities in court, the UDRP decision in its favor would nevertheless NOT be implemented (it would be "vitiated")? James Bladel:@GK - Ah, Hong Kong. Ok. George Kirikos:Informing ICANN is important, in terms of data collection for future reviews (i.e. overcomes some of the problems we've had with data in other existing PDPs, e.g. the RPM one). Mary Wong:The ADNDRC comprises 4 offices - in Beijing (China), Korea, HK and Malaysia. Mary Wong:The slides have now been unsync'ed for scrolling. George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. George Kirikos:@Brian: Yes, that's a correct reading. James Bladel:Yes, I also don't understand how that works in Brian's scenario George Kirikos:Option A ensures that the registrant's legal rights to have the case heard in court are preserved. Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks Mary - and Petter/Phil, if "yes" what is the public policy rationale for this? George Kirikos:i.e. by asserting immunity, the IGO would be violating the undertaking it made that the case should be heard in court on appeal. Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks Phil (Mary) for clarifying. Paul Tattersfield:Absent UDRP the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter. George Kirikos:Option A doesn't deprive the IGOs of any rights, since they can still a case properly, through the courts. Or they could have filed via agent, licensee, etc. to avoid the immunity issue entirely. George Kirikos:In other words, Option A preserves the "status quo" if the UDRP had never existed. George Kirikos:Because, IGOs shouldn't have greater rights, relative to the underlying law, simply by making the strategic choice of filing a UDRP first. James Bladel:Agree with Phil, Option A does not pass the "smell test" and would not get past Council, let along the Board. George Kirikos:The "bargain" that was made when the UDRP was created was that it wouldn't interfere with either sides' legal rights, so Option A preserves things. George Kirikos:A fully informed view of Option A might change your view, James. James Bladel:@George - even if it is legally & technically sound, it is politically untenable. George Kirikos:Right, I can understand the political argument. But, there are solid reasons for wanting to preserve the status quo. George Kirikos:i.e. should ICANN be creating a policy that takes away the rights of registrants to due process? George Kirikos:It was an unintended consequences of the UDRP itself, since no one contemplated the specific scenario above. George Kirikos:Option A fixes that unintended consequence, while still giving the IGO the full ability to have its case heard (in a court). George Kirikos:Option A doesn't say "the matter is over". It just says "the UDRP is set aside". IGO can use other means to get its desired results. James Bladel:IN that scneario, it wouldn't be ICANN but the courts making that decision. Which is what they're supposed to be doing. Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks all for your work/explanations - apologies, I have to run. Philip Corwin:Thanks for your attendance, Brian George Kirikos:@James: Right, Option A says *only* the courts have supremacy. George Kirikos:Option A tends to get misrepresented by those who oppose it. George Kirikos:There are thoughtful reasons behind it. James Bladel:Need to drop, but glad to see this group is closing in on a conclusion to its work. Thanks to all for your continued hard work on this. George Kirikos:So, the consensus call will be post Abu Dhabi? George Kirikos:Or next week? Mary Wong:@George, I think the idea is to have a preliminary consensus call on just the three Options, but to have a full and formal consensus call on all the final recommendations after ICANN60. George Kirikos:Sounds good, Mary. Especially as we've not seen the draft final report yet, to review and edit, etc. Poncelet Ileleji:+1 George Kirikos:It should be pointed out to the GNSO council members that the IGOs declined active participation in this PDP. George Kirikos:Despite many invitations to participate. George Kirikos:(and despite their participation in the predecessor PDP that led to this one) George Kirikos:Bye folks! Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Petter and Phil Paul Tattersfield:Bye everyone Poncelet Ileleji:thanks all bye

2 1

Reminder regarding Expected Standards of Behavior
by Terri Agnew Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Sent on behalf of the GNSO Council leadership team ================ Dear Colleagues - Several recent interactions on PDP working group calls and mailing lists have been referred to the GNSO Chairs (Heather, Donna, and I). After review, our level of concern is such that we felt a refresher on ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior was warranted. A link to this document is provided below, but in general terms we are asking all participants in PDP working groups to elevate the level of discourse on calls and mailing lists to reflect a respectful and professional environment for our work. With this in mind, don't attack fellow volunteers personally, or question their motives, or presume to know their positions without giving them a chance to present it. Humor (especially sarcasm) doesn't go over well in emails or AC chat sessions, and usually doesn't translate at all. Refrain from escalating or retaliating to negative comments. And, above all, remember that our shared objective is not to "win" on any given issue, but to seek out and build upon areas of common understanding. The Expected Standards of Behavior can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource s_pages_expected-2Dstandards-2D2012-2D05-2D15-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=nLTnlCjpaKa0PAoZ3Oo 9Hth_qedPM7PZZR9XOAEmRW8&s=rifMmlUtCDfJQ-7waiDNprOF9hRGXjwUtK_MFiJDj4g&e=> . I know we're all accustomed to just "click through" this text when joining a meeting, but I'm now asking everyone take a minute to two to review it again. Thank you for your help with this matter. J. ---------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] REMINDER: Catch-up Webinar to provide status update on Working Group recommendations
by Steve Chan Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear WG Members, Following the reminder just sent from SO/AC Support, we would also like to flag the email sent below from Mary on 9 October. I would like to highlight this section from her message, “…specifically intended for those Working Group members who have not been able to participate in recent calls about the proposed final recommendations from this PDP.” The WG co-chairs very much encourage your participation on the upcoming catch-up webinar. Best, Steve From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:34 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Webinar to provide status update on Working Group recommendations Dear all, Please note that, following discussions on the Working Group call last week, our co-chairs have confirmed that the call scheduled for 1600 UTC this Thursday, 12 October, will be in the form of a webinar specifically intended for those Working Group members who have not been able to participate in recent calls about the proposed final recommendations from this PDP. Please make every effort to attend if you would like to be updated on the status of discussions with respect to the proposed final recommendations, which we hope to be able to present to the wider ICANN community for their feedback at ICANN60 in less than three weeks’ time. Following that community session, the Working Group is expected to prepare its Final Report for submission to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval. We will also be inviting interested members of the GNSO Council – as managers of the GNSO’s policy development work – to attend the webinar, but we emphasize again that the primary audience for this Thursday’s webinar will be Working Group members. Please let staff know if you have questions or if you are not able to attend. We hope to conclude the session in 60 (not 90) minutes, if that helps your scheduling. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Updated Options Document
by Steve Chan Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

Dear WG Members, Pursuant to the WG’s call on 5 October, staff has worked with the co-chairs to update the Options document. The two major changes are related to the “grandfather” date for Option B and the timeline for the respondent to request arbitration or to appeal the IGO’s assertion of immunity in Option C. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

PLEASE READ: Webinar to provide status update on Working Group recommendations
by Mary Wong Oct. 9, 2017

Oct. 9, 2017

Dear all, Please note that, following discussions on the Working Group call last week, our co-chairs have confirmed that the call scheduled for 1600 UTC this Thursday, 12 October, will be in the form of a webinar specifically intended for those Working Group members who have not been able to participate in recent calls about the proposed final recommendations from this PDP. Please make every effort to attend if you would like to be updated on the status of discussions with respect to the proposed final recommendations, which we hope to be able to present to the wider ICANN community for their feedback at ICANN60 in less than three weeks’ time. Following that community session, the Working Group is expected to prepare its Final Report for submission to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval. We will also be inviting interested members of the GNSO Council – as managers of the GNSO’s policy development work – to attend the webinar, but we emphasize again that the primary audience for this Thursday’s webinar will be Working Group members. Please let staff know if you have questions or if you are not able to attend. We hope to conclude the session in 60 (not 90) minutes, if that helps your scheduling. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0