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

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo
by Mary Wong June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Dear Paul and everyone, Staff is taking the liberty here of addressing your specific question about Professor Swaine’s memo, including your concern that it may have analyzed a situation where it is not the IGO that commences proceedings but rather is the subject of proceedings against it by a trademark owner. We hope the following extracts from the memo will be useful in clarifying the basis on which Professor Swaine gave his opinion. * In his memo, Professor Swaine notes that he “focuses on the most likely scenario: that in which an IGO, possessing rights in a name, abbreviation, emblem or the like arising under the Paris Convention … has complained and prevailed before an administrative panel in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”) proceedings against a domain-name registrant—resulting in an order of cancellation or transfer to which the losing registrant objects by commencing a judicial action … “ (see Page 77 of the Working Group’s Initial Report, at Annex G). * He notes that “how matters unfold from that point [following the registrant’s filing suit] will depend on national law” (Page 81, Annex G) as to the question, “whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction—its immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is that it would not … The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction would likely establish such a waiver, as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts. The overall answer, then, is contingent. If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity from judicial process; in the status quo, however, it likely would not. Equitable considerations might influence any judicial analysis” (Page 78, Annex G). * Concluding that “In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause means that participating IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process, notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be entitled. This will loom largest in cases in which the IGO is the complainant and benefited from an initial panel decision in its favor, such that the decision to resort to judicial proceedings against the IGO—and the risks that creates for adverse results—is made by the private party” (Page 82, Annex G), Professor Swaine focuses the remainder of his memo on this scenario. * As part of his analysis, Professor Swaine also proposed a number of alternative policy proposals for the Working Group’s consideration, including possibly amending the Mutual Jurisdiction clause or arbitration. These were noted and discussed on several Working Group calls in late 2016, prior to the issuance of the Initial Report in January 2017. While the above summary cannot reflect the entirety or depth of Professor Swaine’s advice, staff thought it might be helpful to recall these points given the question raised by Paul. The full memo was attached to the Initial Report as Annex G: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:49 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Cc: "haforrestesq(a)gmail.com" <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear Philip, In your reply to George Kirikos you stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” Thank you that is helpful. When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a domain name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group that this scenario was not within the working group’s charter. Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant to the working group’s final report. I don’t doubt it was expensive and interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you reply showing how it could be in any way considered relevant? Yours sincerely, Paul On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research. I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3…> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>; Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar; haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear Philip, OK lets settle this once and for all: Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do...... If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering. Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: For the record, and in regard to this – The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions. Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3…> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log[community.icann…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records[communi…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. 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=DwMFaQ&…> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with > everyone. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary & Steve > > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy(a)gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 > 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>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong > <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > > > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. > > > > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. > > > > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be > made to support our call. > > > > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group > on this challenging policy area. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Susan Kawaguchi > > Councilor for the Business Constituency > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 6

FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
by Corwin, Philip June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from "Consensus" to "Strong support but significant opposition". Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…) describes those designations as follows: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. (Emphasis added) So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a "small minority" or "a significant number". Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view. Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses. There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of "significant" are not of much value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are "important" or noteworthy". My personal view is that a "small minority" would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a "significant number". The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a "small minority" given the very small size of the total group expressing a view - if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant. If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

3 5

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
by Paul Keating June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Phil, You said: > Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and > opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a > view. > > Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition > from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That > is just shy of one-quarter of all responses. I am not at all sure I can agree with you about what is significant vs insignificant. The significance of the opposition is more properly measured in context of those in support and not merely in the context of the total number of participants expressing an opinion. Further, just simply looking at opposition as an aggregate group leads to further inappropriate conclusions. An opposition of 4 cannot be expressed as ³significant" if each of the 4 had differing reasons for opposition or opted to support alternative options within Recommendation #5. It would be even less ³significant² if 2 were completely opposed to the entire Recommendation (regardless of option) and the other 2 were merely opposed to Option 1 but favored a different Option to the same recommendation number 5. Thus, more appropriate viewing would be: Option 1: In Favor: 11 (79%) Opposed: 3 (21%) >> Explanatory note (example only): Several members in opposition expressed >> support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5. One member was >> completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option. Option 4: In Favor: 10 (77%) Opposed: 3 (23%) >> Explanatory note (example only): Several members in opposition expressed >> support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5. One member was >> completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option. My 2 cents. Paul From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:49 PM To: "rlevy(a)tucows.com" <rlevy(a)tucows.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels > Thanks Reg. > > My 2 cents is that the difference between 25%, 23%, and 21.5% is too > insignificant to result in a different categorization, and that Strong > support but significant opposition¹ is the proper designation. > > Best, Philip > > > Philip S. Corwin > Policy Counsel > VeriSign, Inc. > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > 703-948-4648/Direct > 571-342-7489/Cell > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > > From: Reg Levy [mailto:rlevy@tucows.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:32 PM > To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus > Levels > > As you say, there's no brightline. I would have expected 25% to be > "significant" and anything less "a small minority". I get your argument that > "important" and "noteworthy" are synonyms but if only one person objected with > what they felt were important or noteworthy arguments, I don't agree that this > would mean there was "significant" opposition. > > > > My 2¢ > > > -- > Reg Levy > > Director of Compliance > > Tucows > > > > D: +1 (323) 880-0831 > > O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 > > > > UTC -7 > >> >> On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:54, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> >> Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address >> >> >> >> From: Corwin, Philip >> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM >> To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> > >> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels >> >> >> >> Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I >> believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are >> incorrect and that they should be changed from ³Consensus² to ³Strong support >> but significant opposition². >> >> >> >> Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG >> Guidelines >> (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn >> so-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf >> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn >> so-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf> ) describes those designations as follows: >> >> Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, >> but most agree. >> >> Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of >> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those >> who do not support it. (Emphasis added) >> >> >> >> So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 >> constitutes a ³small minority² or ³a significant number². >> >> >> >> Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and >> opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing >> a view. >> >> >> >> Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition >> from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That >> is just shy of one-quarter of all responses. >> >> >> >> There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing >> line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of >> dictionary definitions of ³significant² are not of much value in this >> context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically >> significant, the most common definitions of the term are ³important² or >> noteworthy². My personal view is that a ³small minority² would be 10% or >> less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those >> expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded >> as a ³significant number². The fact that just three members are in >> opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a ³small minority² given >> the very small size of the total group expressing a view if the responses >> were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, >> and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the >> opposition should be viewed as significant. >> >> >> >> If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this >> statement in my Minority Report. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Philip S. Corwin >> >> Policy Counsel >> >> VeriSign, Inc. >> >> 12061 Bluemont Way >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> 703-948-4648/Direct >> >> 571-342-7489/Cell >> >> >> >> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp> > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP on 12 June 2018
by Andrea Glandon June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find the AC chat attached and the attendance, MP3 and AC recording below for the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms held on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-12jun18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2o28manvl7/<https://participate.icann.org/p2o28manvl7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e314ad0a70a8b967…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Attendees: Crystal Ondo David Maher George Kirikos Jay Chapman Paul Tattersfield Philip Corwin Susan Kawaguchi Audio Only: Paul Keating Petter Rindforth Zak Muscovitch Apologies: Jim Bikoff Nat Cohen Osvaldo Novoa Staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang Andrea Glandon ** 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 Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Adobe Connect issues -- potential solution by clearing cookies
by George Kirikos June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Hi folks, I was having trouble getting into Adobe Connect on one my main computers today (which is a ChromeBox, running ChromeOS, a browser-based operating system, basically using the Chrome Browser for most things visible to the user). I ended up getting things working on a different computer (a Mac), albeit after 5 or 6 attempts at installing the plugin (and with warnings -- it might be 32-bit, and not compatible with future Mac operating system releases, which will require 64-bit apps). Anyhow, after today's call, I was fiddling around with my main computer, and was finally able to connect, simply by clearing cookies! I only needed to clear the "participate.icann.org" cookies (3 of them), and then it worked fine (I wasn't able to get into the room itself, because there was no active meeting, but it got further than before, so presumably would have worked; it asked for access to my mic, etc.). When ICANN reactivated the service, it was likely on a different set of servers than before, and the cookies previously set by the old servers might be causing some sort of issue/conflict. In conclusion, for next week's call, folks might want to try to clear their cookies (just for the participate.icann.org subdomain) if having login issues with Adobe Connect. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

[Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC
by Petter Rindforth June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear All WG Members, Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call. I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached document, to discuss further on Tuesday. For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: Full consensus:when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Consensus:a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree. Strong support but significant opposition:a position where while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. Divergence:also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. Minority View:refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon(a)icann.org>: > Dear all, > > The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Tuesday,12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for90 minutes. > 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST > For other times:<https://tinyurl.com/y865xn8y> > > Agenda Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ> > Web conference tool:Adobe Connect > Please join the meeting room here:<https://participate.icann.org/crp>.If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins:http://tinyurl.com/icannactest[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest…> > Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. > > If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to<gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > > If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers and participant passcode below. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Andrea > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Participant passcode: IGO > > Dial in numbers: > > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ > Toll Free NumberARGENTINA 0800-777-0519AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651CHILE 1230-020-2863CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474CROATIA 080-08-06-309CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324EGYPT 0800000-9029ESTONIA 800-011-1093FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368ISRAEL 1-80-9216162ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439LATVIA 8000-3185LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065PERU 0800-53713PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453POLAND 00-800-1212572PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056TURKEY 00-800-151-0516UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702VIETNAM 120-11751 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp> >

6 13

Pushing towards the final report
by George Kirikos June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Hi folks, As we push towards a final report, I thought it would be wise to invest the time to double-check our (amended) charter: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347887/WG%20Charter%20-%… (just like I double-checked parts of our initial public report from January 2017 last night) to make sure we've covered everything. I think we've actually done what we were supposed to do in the charter (I'll re-read it again later more carefully, but others might want to do the same, if they haven't thought of this). Given the expected scrutiny from the GAC/IGOs, it might be prudent to add sentences here and there in the Final Report, to document that we did cover each and every topic some (or maybe in an appendix). e.g. something like (from page 3) "The potential need to clarify whether the URS is a Consensus Policy binding on ICANN’s contracted parties;" Well, we know it's not a consensus policy (although someday it might be, depending on the RPM PDP). A sentence in the final report might dispatch that item. An item like "The need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes; and" is easy, since that forms part of a recommendation (i.e. Recommendation 4), which may or may not reach consensus. The item "The potential need to distinguish between a legacy gTLD and a new gTLD launched under the New gTLD Program;" isn't hard, i.e. no real distinction, except that the URS applies only to new gTLDs (for now), and that there was also the old reserved list for IGOs in new gTLDs (and an upcoming policy and/or recently approved (not sure if it was implemented yet) policy that made another reserved list for IGOs in all gTLDs) Maybe a 2-column table can be made, with the items on page 3-4 in the first column, and then a cross-reference to either the final report page(s) that cover that topic, or alternatively, cross-references to the Wiki or Mailing List archives, etc. Anyhow, this would be "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" for the final report. But, it would demonstrate that we've been diligent. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

George Kirikos analysis of initial consensus designation levels (as of June 11, 2018)
by George Kirikos June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Hi folks, I've done my own analysis, given the problems already identified with the ones done by Staff/Petter/Susan [hereafter just "Staff version"] (which is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001264.html ). Reg Levy's own analysis is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001266.html [although the version on the web is poorly formatted; I suggest if PDP members want to view it more easily, they refer back to the one in their mailbox; conceivably it can be turned into a PDF and then resent to the list to be archives, so that others viewing the web archive can read it more easily] A Google Sheets version is at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTF… (updates every 5 minutes, if I make changes) and a PDF is attached that is captured as of just before this email. I would suggest Staff add those both to the Wiki for tomorrow's call, so they can be referenced. As you can see, I took more a nuanced view of the input, rather than a black/white (Support/Do Not Support) that Petter/Susan/Staff did. Reg's was also more nuanced, but only looked at the options in relation to Recommendation #5 (I looked at everything). I also took into account Mike Rodenbaugh's input (Reg didn't, that's why she has 14 rows, and I have 15). I also took into account Paul Keating's input from the May 10, 2018 phone call (where he opposed subsidies, i.e. opposed recommendation #4). And I also captured emails up to now (Jim Bikoff's apparent change of position is a bit confusing, so question marks there). I also made inferences for Options #1 through #6 of Recommendation 5 for Osvaldo and Crystal -- but left out any inferences for Recommendations 1 through 4 when there was no direct response for everyone] Anyhow, here's what my analysis suggests: A] Recommendation 1: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS") I think full consensus is achievable, but the wording needs to be slightly changed (i.e. see the comments of myself and Zak, echoed by Nat/Jay), i.e. add the word "substantive". If we look at the text which staff sent out today, they've already added the word "Substantive", so I think we're all in sync on that (compare to Petter's version sent out on Saturday night which had the original text, which didn't include the word 'substantive'). B] Recommendation 2: (staffs says "CONSENSUS") I think consensus is achievable, if we clarify the text. The text got partially changed already (staff version of today, compared with Petter's from Saturday), but as I noted earlier today: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001267.html they only did half the changes. C] Recommendation 3: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS") I've got this marked as "CONSENSUS", because I have Jim Bikoff marked as no support, based on his email at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html D] Recommendation 4: (staff says "CONSENSUS") This is one the trickier ones. I think Consensus might be achievable, if we clarify the text. But, it might end up being "STRONG SUPPORT WITH SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION". Right now, it's hard to tell. As I noted above, I've captured Paul Keating's input on this issue, which he's expressed on phone calls. E] Recommendation 5: Option #1 (staff says "CONSENSUS") I agree, it appears to be consensus (even with the implied opposition of Osvaldo that I record, but differ on staff with; we agree on all supporters, although I mark Mike Rodenbaugh as a "yellow" instead of a "green" (would be ok with, rather than "support"). F] Recommendation 5: Option #2 (staff says "NO CONSENSUS / DIVERGENCE") I agree. G] Recommendation 5: Option #3 (staff says "MINORITY VIEW (WITH CONSENUS AGAINST THIS OPTION) I agree. H] Recommendation 5: Option #4: (staff says "CONSENSUS") I think this one's unclear. I think it's either consensus (but a smaller one than Option #1), OR it is Strong Support But Significant Opposition. Unlike Staff, I base this on implied "No" from Crystal and Osvaldo, and non-binary "conditional support" from Jim and Reg, as well as the rank preferences from others in Option #1] I] Recommendation 5: Option #5: (staff says "NO CONSENSUS/DIVERGENCE") I agree. J] Recommendation 5: Option #6 (staff says ""STRONG SUPPORT BUT SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION") I've got it marked as No Consensus / Divergence, because I treat Crystal/Osvaldo differently than staff (I infer an implied "No"). Also I treat Reg differently too (non-binary). If anyone feels I've interpreted their input incorrectly, please let me know. As for moving forward (I still maintain we need more time), here are some constructive suggestions: 1. "finalize" (subject to a big review before the final report, in case someone missed something big) some of the text that has changed in Recommendation #1 & #2 (which has been changed, implicitly there's agreement, but we should get everyone explicitly on board) 2. Separate out Recommendation 4 (subsidies, etc.) for further discussion. Either agree to change in the recommendation itself (text), or have a more formal survey just separately on that issue (since there were some non-responses) 3. For Recommendation 5, I'd suggest marking Options #2, #3 and #5 as "dead", and concluded determined designations as what they were listed at -- staff and I agree; although others might raise objections] 4. For Recommendation 5, Option #6, I would make a "friendly" amendment for Paul T. Since Option #6 is really just the same (essentially as mediation + Option #1), I would suggest that we isolate things to break the linkage to Option #1 i.e. I would suggest that we create an entirely separate "Recommendation 6" which *only* had the mediation aspect. Then, folks can support/oppose the mediation aspect by itself, without the implicit linkage to Option #1. . Currently, staff doesn't have it reaching "Consensus" a notch below that, and I have it even weaker. 5. For Recommendation 5, Options #1 and #4 -- here the idea of "rank" really should come into play. Having both accepted might be considered "weird". i.e. Option #1 gives a solution to the problem now, but then Option #4 says "we're not going to solve the problem now, we're going to send it to the RPM PDP"). Those are my thoughts for now. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 5

Proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear WG Members, With apologies for late delivery, as George noted, please find the proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Welcome / SOIs Review of Initial Consensus Level Designations Next Steps AOB In regards to agenda item 2, please see the attached document to support those discussions. This document follows and is a revised version of the one sent by Petter on 9 June 2018. 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/

4 5

CLARIFICATIONS (Re: Proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC)
by Mary Wong June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear all, Staff wishes to clarify a few matters. First, please note that a consensus call process is not a formal voting process. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines require that initial designations of consensus levels be made by the Working Group chair(s) following what they believe has been, and based on their estimation and evaluation of the outcome of, sufficient discussion of the issues under consideration by the group. As has been noted previously by this group, polling is intended to be limited to rare situations, and even so the Guidelines note that “care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes”. There is no requirement that all members’ preferences must be expressly listed, and this is not generally done in other PDPs – however, for this particular group Petter believed that in the circumstances it might be useful to do so in the document that he sent around initially. The updated document that Steve circulated most recently with the proposed agenda reflected what, as of the close of the consensus call and when Petter and Susan conferred with staff, seemed to be the situation based on members’ expressed opinions. In some cases, where a person noted that he/she supported a recommendation/option but did not specifically say he/she opposed others, their silence on the other recommendations/options was not necessarily interpreted as objection – seeing especially as this process is not a formal voting process and, as such, there is no provision for abstentions. There may be disagreement about whether someone in fact supported or opposed a proposal based on what they did or did not say, or whether he/she will now support a proposal because of some changes made to the text – this iterative consensus process is intended to elicit that type of clarification and error correction. Secondly, the GNSO procedures do not require that the Final Report be circulated along with the opening of the consensus call. While typically this has been done in some other PDPs, the circumstances of this Working Group mean that the last version of the draft Final Report that was circulated could not include final proposed language on some of the options, as these needed clarifying through the consensus process that is now taking place. Staff notes that members were invited to voice concerns and raise suggestions about substantive text of the draft Final Report that had been circulated, and a deadline of 21 May suggested for this purpose. Staff has noted the few suggestions received and will be updating the report further with the final results of this consensus call. Thirdly, staff had already noted to Petter and Susan that Option 1 and Option 4 may be incompatible with one another, as several members have already begun discussing on this mailing list. Our collective expectation was that this is something that can and should be clarified by the group, possibly on the call taking place later today, if it becomes clear that those are indeed going to be the group’s final consensus recommendations. In this regard, while the anticipated date of finalization of all recommendations and the report was intended to be 17 June, we note that this was based on the hope that there will not be significant difficulty in reaching agreement on the final consensus levels and recommendations. It is up to the group, in consultation with Petter and Susan, to determine if after the call today more time may be needed. Finally, the updated consensus level designations document includes a few changes to the text of Recommendations #1 & #2. For Recommendation #1, we have added the word “substantive” to the phrase “No [substantive] changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made … “, reflecting a suggestion made by Zak to clarify that procedural changes may still be permitted if these become necessary. For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint. Staff would also like to take this opportunity also to reiterate that where we have raised questions or provided information about specific issues, we have done so in our role as policy staff facilitating and supporting GNSO Working Groups, managing Working Group processes, and providing subject matter expertise where needed or appropriate. We hope that the Working Group has found this assistance helpful. Thank you. Best regards, Mary and Steve From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Reg Levy <rlevy(a)tucows.com> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 08:18 To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC This is precisely why I think we need to have a vote that is much more obvious about who is voting in support (or not) of what. It should ALSO be made VERY clear what an abstention means. I take it to mean "no" but I know that is not a universal view. -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7 On 11 Jun 2018, at 15:00, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Actually, I spoke too soon. For Recommendation #2, the text was changed (to what I initially thought was acceptable), but it only captured *part* of the change, not the full change. i.e. my change was: "An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered trademark or service marks rights for which it might adduce….." But this new document instead says: "An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered rights for which it might adduce….." i.e. the *second* "trademark or service" marks is *missing* from this new version. So, unless the wording is changed again, count me as *NOT SUPPORT* of this text. I'm going to go through this more thoroughly later, and consolidate all future comments into a single email. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: This is late, and given what I've posted the past few days, one would have expected it to have been triple-checked for accuracy, etc. I went directly to Recommendation #2, and noticed I'm now listed as "Support" and Paul Tattersfield is listed as "do not support" (whereas in the document before this, sent by Petter, both Paul T. and I were listed as "do not support"): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html Here was my comment: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html and Paul T's: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html both of us wanted slight changing of the wording. So, I see that the document that Steve circulated *does* change the wording, so my "Support" in the new document is accurate. But, then since Paul T agreed with me (and presumably agrees with the new text), why is he still listed as "Do Not Support"??? Also, we know from posts on the mailing list that Jim Bikoff expressly said he only supports Recommendation #1 ! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html "All, please understand my position in support of recommendation 1 that no change to UDRP or URS or special procedure is warranted. No support for other recommendations." So, that's 2 errors (i.e. Paul T flips to "Support" and Jim Bikoff is added to "Do not support") So, this *still* has *obvious* errors, and I haven't even reviewed it closely (so there could be, and probably are, even more). I have so little confidence, I basically have to *redo* it on my own, on a compressed time frame. As for the agenda, I'd like my new Section 3.7 appeal to be a topic added to the agenda (which does require a call between the chair and myself, and since we're both going to be present -- or it could be immediately after the call), along with the general topic of how it's humanly possible to get a final report out by Sunday. Or if it's already been decided that that timeline is off the table, tell us now, to release some pressure from this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, With apologies for late delivery, as George noted, please find the proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Welcome / SOIs Review of Initial Consensus Level Designations Next Steps AOB In regards to agenda item 2, please see the attached document to support those discussions. This document follows and is a revised version of the one sent by Petter on 9 June 2018. 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/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

2 2