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

Update on WG questions to the GAC
by Mason Cole Dec. 13, 2014

Dec. 13, 2014

All -- In my capacity as liaison between the GNSO and the GAC, I submitted on December 2 this WG's clarifying questions regarding the disparity between the WG's charter and the GAC's Los Angeles advice. The questions were sent to Suzanne Radell, Mark Carvell and Thomas Schneider of the GAC, who collectively have taken the lead on this issue within the GAC. I've been advised by Suzanne that they've been received and the GAC is expecting a briefing from her regarding the issue in order to take up their deliberations and hopefully answer these questions. They're also looking into a small group of IGOs who they could task to take up the issue. I took the liberty of advising Suzanne that the WG would likely welcome a discussion with IGOs as an agenda item during one of the WG meetings and that I would seek to arrange it were that agreeable. I will let you know what I hear back. Please let me know if you have questions in the meantime. Thanks -- Mason Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason(a)donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555

2 2

Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider / How to proceed with our work
by Petter Rindforth Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Dear members of the GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG: Thank you for your continued interest in the topic and your active participation this week! Also, thanks to Mary and Steve for your updates and for reminding us about the 2007 Staff Report on a Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure. That points out that, four months into our work, we continue to focus on and review additional materials related to it. It is always good to be reminded on what has already been done/discussed on a specific topic, so that we can both avoid mistakes and not support what we believe is not necessary, as well as proceed with ideas we support and build on them with improvements and refinements. As you all know, we have this week sent out a letter to all GNSO Stakeholder Group/Constituency Chair’s with four specific questions and a request for replies by late January. We certainly need to collect those inputs/replies before we make any conclusions and/or start working on any initial (preliminary) Report. We also remind you that there are discussions going on with IGOs, through the GAC, and hopefully we can also get inputs/clarifications from these parties of interest before we come to any conclusions. We, as your Co-Chairs, still suggest that we meet next Wednesday to summarize the comments so far, and then resume discussions in early January. Further, we believe it is too early to take votes or straw polls regarding IGOs, as that would violate the respect of those GNSO Stakeholder Groups, etc. that have now actively begun the work to reply to our four questions. We also believe that, given the sensitivity of this issue for ICANN’s Board, GAC, and GNSO Council, any final report and the conclusions underlying it must be based on thorough and well-documented review of all available materials if it is to settle this matter with reasonable finality. Additional investigation and discussion of the nature and force of the rights conferred on IGOs by Article 6ter, the ability and degree to which IGOs have registered their full names and/or acronyms as trademarks, and the manner in which various nations have implemented their Article 6ter protection responsibilities need to be undertaken to provide a solid basis for any final conclusions and report. We strongly suggest that no decisions be made until we have received inputs from all groups of interest. We also note that this WG has a facilitated face-to-face meeting scheduled in Singapore on Friday, February 13th; depending on our progress, it can serve as a forum to discuss elements of an initial report, or of further work to be done in advance of reaching final conclusions and reporting thereon. We welcome your feedback on these views, both by e-mail and during pour least call of 2014 taking place on Wednesday, December 17th. Best regards, Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

1 0

FW: Update on WG questions to the GAC
by Phil Corwin Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Thanks to Mason; forwarding on his behalf-- 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: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 4:58 PM To: Phil Corwin; <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Rindforth Subject: Fwd: Update on WG questions to the GAC Phil and Petter -- Can you please forward this to the WG list until I can get email issues sorted out? Thanks. Mason Begin forwarded message: From: ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-owner(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp-owner@icann.org> Subject: Update on WG questions to the GAC Date: December 12, 2014 1:55:40 PM PST To: mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Your message was rejected From: Mason Cole <mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co>> Subject: Update on WG questions to the GAC Date: December 12, 2014 1:55:17 PM PST To: Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> All -- In my capacity as liaison between the GNSO and the GAC, I submitted on December 2 this WG's clarifying questions regarding the disparity between the WG's charter and the GAC's Los Angeles advice. The questions were sent to Suzanne Radell, Mark Carvell and Thomas Schneider of the GAC, who collectively have taken the lead on this issue within the GAC. I've been advised by Suzanne that they've been received and the GAC is expecting a briefing from her regarding the issue in order to take up their deliberations and hopefully answer these questions. They're also looking into a small group of IGOs who they could task to take up the issue. I took the liberty of advising Suzanne that the WG would likely welcome a discussion with IGOs as an agenda item during one of the WG meetings and that I would seek to arrange it were that agreeable. I will let you know what I hear back. Please let me know if you have questions in the meantime. Thanks -- Mason Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. .................................... ...... ...... mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. .................................... ...... ...... mason(a)donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5557 / Virus Database: 4223/8641 - Release Date: 11/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Straw Poll: Whether the UNITAID decision procedural roadmap fulfills this PDP's mandate?
by George Kirikos Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Hi folks, Just to highlight a snippet from a prior post, there was critical language in the UNITAID UDRP decision at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=3DD2012-1922 which says: "In 2009, a Fiduciary Agreement was made between the World Health Organization/Unitaid and the Complainant to file and hold in its own name, for the benefit of Unitaid, the necessary applications for the protection of the “Unitaid” name, according to the instructions and under the control of World Health Organization/Unitaid. In 2009, the Complainant thus registered, in its own name but for the benefit of World Health Organization/Unitaid, UNITAID as a trademark in numerous jurisdictions." In my view, it really demonstrates how IGOs can work within the existing UDRP, without any amendments whatsoever and without any new DRP. Perhaps IGOs just aren't aware that they can do the above? It neatly and simultaneously handles concerns over standing and immunity, which are the main "issues" at the moment. Lenz & Staehelin, by the way, is a Swiss law firm, so they essentially stood as a proxy for the IGO itself (kind of like my own proposal in a prior email, where I suggested a Federal government in the same jurisdiction as the registrant might become the proxy). For INGOs, we called for a vote or straw poll or whatever to see whether we'd reached a conclusion on their issues. Perhaps the same kind of vote might be appropriate at this point, if everyone was satisfied that all IGOs could do the above? It's disappointing that the IGOs aren't participating directly in the PDP, because we're essentially trying to invent reasons to continue our work on their behalf, and are probably seeing that the issues are getting narrower and narrower and perhaps have shrunk to zero. I think if IGOs were made aware of that helpful precedent at WIPO, they might stop pestering the GAC, and allow us to conclude sooner, rather than later. I'd appreciate arguments as to why IGOs *can't* do the above procedure, if anyone has them. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

Food for thought on the "standing" requirement and sovereign immunity
by Mary Wong Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Dear all, This is not intended to take any position on the issue of standing; rather, we as support staff thought the WG might find useful the draft text that was produced for the GNSO Council in 2007 for an alternative dispute resolution procedure (DRP) (attached). As you¹ll recall this was part of the scoping that had been done at the time for an Issue Report which, however, did not lead to any policy work for lack of requisite votes on the GNSO Council. Of particular note is the modification of the UDRP requirements for a complaint and thus a mandatory administrative proceeding under 4(a) of the UDRP to be as follows: "(i) the registration or use, as a domain name, of the name or abbreviation of the complainant that has been communicated under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention is of a nature: (a) to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the domain nameholder and the complainant; or (b) to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the domain name holder and the complainant; or (ii) on the ground that the registration or use, as a domain name, of a name or abbreviation of the complainant protected under an international treaty violates the terms of that treaty.² The draft text therefore suggests two alternative grounds for standing in lieu of trademark rights. FWIW the draft text also deals with the sovereign immunity issue by defining ³Mutual Jurisdiction² to be an arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules either of the AAA, ICDR, WIPO or the London Court of International Arbitration (see Definitions under the Rules of Procedure, 3.B.) I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org -----Original Message----- From: <Dorrain>, Kristine <kdorrain(a)adrforum.com> Date: Friday, 12 December 2014 10:09 To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider >Agree. > >Sent from my iPhone > >On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Jim Bikoff ><jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>> wrote: > >Agree. > >Jim > >James L. Bikoff >Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP >1101 30th Street, NW >Suite 120 >Washington, DC 20007 >Tel: 202-944-3303 >Fax: 202-944-3306 >jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > >Sent from my iPad > >On Dec 11, 2014, at 7:34 PM, David W. Maher ><dmaher(a)pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: > >+1 >David W. Maher >Senior Vice President Law & Policy >Public Interest Registry >312 375 4849 > > >From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> >Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:14 PM >To: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> >Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" ><gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> >Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to >Consider > >Generally agree with Paul, and had the same basic feeling: "My reaction >to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason to even >consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the pre-requisite of >a trademark. " > >I am curious to hear if anyone could pose any other remotely justifiable >basis for standing, other than trademark rights. > >Best, >Mike > >Mike Rodenbaugh >RODENBAUGH LAW >tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 >http://rodenbaugh.com > >On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Paul Keating ><Paul(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: >Thank you Steve, > >Regarding the questions noted below, I wanted to respond to a comment I >believe that Peder made during the call regarding the requirement that >trademarks were no longer the standing requirement they once were in the >UDRP. I believe he used the example of famous people's names. I have >not listened to the MP3 recording so, if I am mistaken in attributing the >comment to Peder, let me be the first to apologize for my error. > >Peder, your comment was entirely incorrect. Those UDRPs involving famous >names have turned on whether the complainant's use of the name amounted >to a common law trademark right. In cases of mere fame without >commercialization, panels have found no t trademarks. In those in which >the names were clearly linked to commercial activities (music, books, >etc), the panels have found a common law trademark to exist. I know of >absolutely no UDRP decision in which the panel found a famous name >sufficient without also finding the requisite common law trademark right. > If you have one to mind, please share it and I will stand corrected. > >My reaction to the standing issue is that there is absolutely no reason >to even consider it. The UDRP has always been founded on the >pre-requisite of a trademark. The WIPO White Paper was clear that the >UDRP should not be a vehicle for the creation or expansion of >intellectual proper rights in cyber-space beyond those existing in the >"real world". Notwithstanding the clear "identical and confusingly >similar" language, panels have watered down the 1st Element to one of >mere standing which as I have previously said, is such a low barrier >that a worm could easily cross. The panels did so by progressively >ignoring the clear language ("identical or confusingly similar") which is >a widely recognized and well-honed term of art in trademark infringement >to one which is merely a text vs t ext comparison. However, this is not >and can never, IMHO be, a reason to ignore the language entirely and >permit some other substitution to a registered or common law mark. > >Further, to do so would require a wholesale amendment to the UDRP (and >URS). This would require an amendment to the ICANN/Registrar agreement >AND a change to the Registrar/Registrant agreement. > >Finally, although it was within our initial charter to consider >amendments, I feel seriously doing so would be impractical. In addition >to the above reasons, given that it would require an amendment to the >UDRP, I believe that such a task is better left to a Working Group >assigned for such purpose because once the suggestion is made to open an >amendment process, it will quickly include other and competing views on a >variety of subjects. > >It is for this reason I suggested our next session focus on the issue of >Sovereign Immunity and we leave the issue of rights expansion to January. > > >Finally, please allow me to apologize once again for not seeming to "get >it" with the audio portion of my participation. Someday I will be able >to arrange my black box to accurately interact with all of those >interconnected tubes in the "web"..:-) > > >Warmest regards, > >Paul > >From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> >Date: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:26 AM >To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" ><gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> >Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider > >Dear WG Members, > >Attached, please find the final version of the letter drafted to solicit >input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies; this letter was >sent to the chairs of each of the SG/Cs yesterday. > >In addition, it was agreed on today¹s call that at least for the moment, >the group would not break up into sub groups and would instead work >together over the list to debate the following item from the group¹s work >plan: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, >authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that >would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings >(existing or new)² > >The WG may want to consider the following questions when thinking about >this item: > > * >What might be a justifiable, principled basis for ³standing² other than >TM rights, whether under the UDRP, URS or a new dispute resolution >procedure? > * >Assuming for the moment that sovereign immunity is a problem for IGOs >(pending responses from the GAC and the IGOs), what type of appeal >process other than what is now in the UDRP and URS might be a solution >that would still offer adequate protection to registrants? > >Best, >Steve > > >Steven Chan >Sr. Policy Manager > >ICANN >12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >steve.chan(a)icann.org ><mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >direct: +1.310.301.3886<tel:%2B1.310.301.3886> >mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:%2B1.310.339.4410> >tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:%2B1.310.301.5800> >fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:%2B1.310.823.8649> >_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing >list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

4 4

- Final SG/C Letter and Questions to Consider
by Steve Chan Dec. 12, 2014

Dec. 12, 2014

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the final version of the letter drafted to solicit input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies; this letter was sent to the chairs of each of the SG/Cs yesterday. In addition, it was agreed on today¹s call that at least for the moment, the group would not break up into sub groups and would instead work together over the list to debate the following item from the group¹s work plan: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings (existing or new)² The WG may want to consider the following questions when thinking about this item: * What might be a justifiable, principled basis for ³standing² other than TM rights, whether under the UDRP, URS or a new dispute resolution procedure? * * Assuming for the moment that sovereign immunity is a problem for IGOs (pending responses from the GAC and the IGOs), what type of appeal process other than what is now in the UDRP and URS might be a solution that would still offer adequate protection to registrants? Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

6 5

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 1700 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 1700 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-2014121<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20141203-en.mp3>0-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Kristine Dorrain- Individual Nat Cohen - BC Mason Cole – RySG David Maher – RySG Paul Keating – NCUC Val Sherman - IPC David Heasley - IPC Susan Kawaguchi – BC Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP Apologies: Mary Wong ICANN staff: Berry Cobb Steve Chan Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 10 December 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 10 December 2014 George Kirikos:Hi everyone. George Kirikos:Is there a meeting next week? I believe Hannukah starts next Tuesday, although I'm not sure if that'll affect any of our participants/members. Paul Keating:hello all. George Kirikos:Hi Paul. Petter Rindforth:We will discuss that during this meeting - we plan to have just a short update meeting Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I am late. George Kirikos:Welcome, Osvaldo. Philip Corwin:Hello all Steve Chan:sorry all, let me put up the current version George Kirikos:Petter: were you able to clarfiy the email to the IPC mailing list? Nathalie Peregrine:Nat Cohen is on the audio bridge George Kirikos:It looks like it hasn't been sent to the Business Constituency yet (their mailing list is public athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ ) Paul Keating:I think the registrars should recieve a copy as well since any change to the UDRP would require a change to the RA. George Kirikos:Paul might be on mute? George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute, I think. Nathalie Peregrine:@ Paul, you need to activate your AC mic, as you are not on the audio bridge Philip Corwin:I believe the plan is to send to all SGs and Acs, including registrar SG Paul Keating:I will through my MAC to the sea. Can you see my and George's comment. George Kirikos:I think it's going to every constituency, correct? Paul Keating:thank you. Philip Corwin:I have not seen on BC list yet, public or private Paul Keating:I will get this right one day :-( George Kirikos:I had another question? (re the update?) George Kirikos:Did we get anything back from the IGOs or the GAC yet? Steve Chan:Confirmed, the letter was sent to the BC. That chair may not have circulated to the wider group yet. Philip Corwin:Steve, when you get a chance please circulate the finakl version of the letter as sent out so everyone can have for their records? Thanks George Kirikos:Thanks Steve. Steve Chan:@phil, sure thing George Kirikos:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0222.h… Paul Keating:But the UDRP is founded in trademark law as noted by the WIPO White Paper. Paul Keating:Any inclusion of non-trademark rights would require a substantive change to the 1st Element of the Policy. Paul Keating:Phil, There is also nothing to stop UDRP Panels from treating their names as if Common Law Trademarks....... I see no reason to deal with this given the substantial nature of changes that would be required. George Kirikos:The UNITAID example I gave last week also had a TM: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I don't speak for IGOs but I suspect a concern is phishing. a legitimate business owning and operating IDEA.com is very different from some random person using it to divert funds, etc. Paul Keating:Peter, that is not a correct statement. Those UDRPs dealing with famous names were based ONLY on trademark. Paul Keating:I agree with George. Jay Chapman:agree with George as well Paul Keating:@Kristine, such issues are really well beyond the scope of a UDRP. George Kirikos:It would be more of an anti-impersonation policy. I think that can still be handled via the UDRP. Paul Keating:Phil, Janu 6/7 however is a very big day in Europe (Epiphany) and is actually more important than Christmas for many people. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:UDRP routinely handles phishing cases. If the IGO has a common law mark and the domain name owner is targeting that mark, even with an arguably "generic" word like IDEA, a high number of panelists are going to transfer that name to stop the harm. Paul Keating:@Kristine, yes but only as a function of finding bad faith and lack of LI. It is not used as a substitute for finding a trademark. George Kirikos:Yes. It won't stop folks from phishing via "fake-hhhh.biz" for IDEA (to give an example), since "IDEA" doesn't appear within the domain. Paul Keating:I agree with Phil Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I was not saying a new policy is needed. I just answering the question about why an IGO might go after something "generic" like IDEA. Just one reason. George Kirikos:(i.e. they couldn't get relief for that via the UDRP). But, that'd be a very different DRP. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:correct. UDRP does not deal with content. Which is a different problem. :) Paul Keating:I suggest we use next week to focus on Sov. Immunity and deal with teh trademark issue in January Paul Keating:I am sorry but I must go to a client board call. Thank you to all and have a great weekend. George Kirikos:I think Paul Tattersfield had checked a few already. George Kirikos:(via TMView, etc.) George Kirikos:Have a great day, everyone. Mason Cole:So long Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks everyong Petter Rindforth:Thanks to you all!

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Dear WG members, Here is the proposed agenda for the next WG call on Wednesday 10 December, to be chaired by Petter: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Update from WG chairs 3. Discuss WG approach (e.g. via small groups or other method) and brainstorming on Work Plan question: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs that would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings (existing or new)² 4. Next steps We look forward to speaking with you on the call. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 23 October at 12.00 UTC (new date) Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 23 October or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs(a)icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

2 2

Proposed final version of WG letter to GNSO Stakeholder Group/Constituency chairs
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2014

Dec. 8, 2014

Dear WG members, Please reply to the list if you have any concerns or comments about the latest version of the proposed WG letter to all GNSO SG/C chairs soliciting input on our work. This is the version sent by Jim to the WG mailing list on Friday 5 December (see below). If possible please send those concerns or comments (if any) by today (Monday) so that we can prepare a clean final version for Phil and Petter to send to the SG/C chairs as soon as possible. ICANN staff will also work with Phil and Petter to reformat/re-address the letter for sending to other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com> Date: Friday, December 5, 2014 at 6:01 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and draft document for WG call on Wednesday 3 December 2014 > Phil, > > Suggested revisions attached. > > Best, > > Jim > > James L. Bikoff > Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP > 1101 30th Street, NW > Suite 120 > Washington, DC 20007 > Tel: 202-944-3303 > Fax: 202-944-3306 > jbikoff(a)sgbdc.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> > > > > > > > > From:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org] > on behalf of Mary Wong [mary.wong(a)icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:54 PM > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and draft document for WG call on > Wednesday 3 December 2014 > > Dear all, > > > > Here is the proposed agenda as well as a document for review and discussion > during our next WG call on Wednesday 3 December 2014: > 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI > 2. Updates on previous Action Items (Mason Cole/ICANN staff) > 3. Discussion of draft letter to GNSO Stakeholder Group/Constituency chairs > (note that the final version can also be tweaked, as necessary, for sending to > SO/AC chairs outside the GNSO) > 4. [if time permits] Commence discussions of next Work Plan task: "Develop > potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication > criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that would be relevant to > their use of dispute resolution proceedings (existing or new)² > 5. Next steps > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > >

1 0