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

Report from Subgroup C
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 7, 2014

Oct. 7, 2014

1. Attached is a helpful Staff summary of the relevant background materials (viz. the recommendations from the WIPO-2 Process in 2002, the report from the ICANN President’s Joint WG in 2004, and the recommendations and outcomes from the GNSO’s Issue Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations in 2007) - as circulated by staff to this Sub-Group last week. 2. The Sub-Group’s focus is on identifying circumstances that may have changed the need for and/or scope of protections for IGO and/or INGO identifiers since the GNSO’s work in 2007. Please see below for those that identified by our Subgroup, and please reply with any additional suggestions you may have: - *The New gTLD Program*: now we know the scale and scope of the expansion that was only speculative in 2007 - *Increasing GAC role/IGO request for protections in the New gTLD Program*: there is now specific GAC advice that there be additional protections for IGOs (including acronyms) and for the Red Cross and IOC (two INGOs) in the New gTLD Program. Certain interim protections have been put in place for some of these while the GNSO completes its work. For IGO acronyms, the final scope of their protection will depend on (1) the extent of Trademark Clearinghouse (and accompanying trademark claims notice) protection they get (see further below); and (2) whether our WG develops recommendations that will enable them to better use curative rights mechanisms. - *GNSO recommendations for IGO acronyms differ from GAC advice*: As noted above, differences remain between the GNSO’s adopted recommendation for IGO acronyms and the GAC advice. Discussions are ongoing among the Board, GAC and GNSO on resolving this, which hinge in part on the duration and nature of TMCH (and TM claims) protection. - *The creation of added RPMs (e.g. TMCH and URS) for the New gTLD Program*: however, as noted in the Issue Report for our WG, these may not address IGO or INGO needs. 3. In our next phase of work (Phase II), we suggest that the full WG consider these identified changed circumstances alongside the data gathered by Sub-Groups A and B, to discuss whether these changes and data illustrate that there is indeed a need (or not) to update the GNSO’s 2007 work by considering either amending the UDRP and/or URS, or developing a special dispute resolution procedure, for IGOs or INGOs (either or both). Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

2 1

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan Oct. 7, 2014

Oct. 7, 2014

Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the call scheduled for Wednesday 08 October 2014 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Progress Reports from Sub-Groups A, B & C 3. Discuss next steps - including agenda for WG meeting at ICANN51 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

Sub-Groups: volunteering and how they will work
by Mary Wong Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear WG members, Following up on our call of earlier today, here is some further information on the three Sub-Groups A, B & C (please refer to the attached document, which was also sent around yesterday and used on the call, to see each Sub-Group¹s assigned tasks and staff suggestions for various steps associated with each task). Volunteers: > A - Petter Rindforth. Kristine Dorrain. Jim Bikoff, Jay Chapman, Nat Cohen > B - Phil Corwin, Paul Keating, George Kirikos, Imran Ahmed Shah > C - Mike Rodenbaugh > Please email me if you¹d like to join the work of one of these groups! In particular, it will be good to get more volunteers for Sub-Group C. How the Sub-Groups will Work: * Please let me or Steve Chan know if your Sub-Group will require assistance with setting up calls, record keeping or the actual research tasks at hand. In addition, either one of us will be happy to sit in on or facilitate a Sub-Group call if the scheduling permits it, and of course provided that your group would welcome it. * Staff will send an email to each Sub-Group so that each member of that group will have one another¹s email addresses. We can also create a wiki page for each group to record/upload its work and results. * As mentioned on the call, most of the background documents needed are already on the WG wiki please let us know if there are documents missing you would like to see there, or if you have difficulty finding any of them. * Finally, as Petter noted at the end of our call, there will be no WG meeting next week (1 October), to enable each Sub-Group to conduct its business with a view toward reporting back to the full WG on its progress on 8 October. 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

2 1

Follow up from our WG meeting earlier today
by Mary Wong Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear WG members, This is to follow up on the ³action items² stemming from and certain WG questions raised on the WG call earlier today relating to IGO and INGO statistics. I. Action Items: The following WG members have signed up for the three sub-groups identified in the Work Plan: > A - Petter Rindforth. Kristine Dorrain. Jim Bikoff > B - Phil Corwin, Paul Keating, George Kirikos, Imran Ahmed Shah > C- None so far > Please sign up for one of the three Sub-Groups by emailing me by Friday 19 September if at all possible (refer to the Summary Extract of the Work Plan for a description of each Sub-Group: https://community.icann.org/x/9brhAg) Staff will compile the list before our next meeting for review by the WG Co-Chairs. As noted on the call, Sub-Groups are expected to discuss how they wish to achieve the aims set out in the Work Plan, and formal meetings and recordings are generally not arranged. Of course, Sub-Groups may request ICANN staff assistance with setting up calls, as well as facilitating their research and information gathering, such as liaising with ICANN General Counsel and providing information as to whether there are resources available to support a particular form of research for which a fee is charged by the third party from whom information is being sought. We can also set up wiki pages for each Sub-Group to record and edit its work, if desired. II. Follow Up Questions (1) On what is an ³international organization², or more specifically, an ³international governmental organization² or IGO: * The GAC¹s approved list of IGOs that was sent to the Board in March 2013, and which was the list upon which our predecessor WG based its recommendations, defines these as: ³(a) an international organization established by a treaty and which possesses international legal personality; or (b) an ³Intergovernmental organization² having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the United Nations General Assembly; or (c) a distinct entity, organ or program of the United Nations.² * Note that although the term is not defined in the Paris Convention, Article 6ter refers to an international intergovernmental organization of which at least one WIPO Member State is a member and the adoption of the Paris Convention by the World Trade Organization (WTO) via the 1994 Trade-Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) means that this now extends to all WTO member countries regardless of whether they also joined the Paris Convention. (2) On how many IGOs are on the GAC list of March 2013: * The GAC list contains 192 organizations (see list attached.) * Although the updated number of IGOs who have submitted notifications for protection under Article 6ter is not known to ICANN staff at the moment, a 2005 paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat noted that by 31 August 2005, 118 IGOs had submitted notifications under Article 6ter. This was updated to 138 in 2007, divided as follows: >> 24 flags >> 290 emblems >> 288 abbreviations >> 578 names * As noted on the WG call, the scope of our WG is limited to the GAC list, as that was the scope of the recommendations ultimately adopted by our predecessor PDP WG. (3) On how many NGOs are on the ECOSOC list: * As of September 2013, 3900 NGOs have Consultative Status with ECOSOC, of which only 144 have attained General Consultative Status, with the others mostly given Special Consultative Status or Roster status (see attached list). Those organizations with General Consultative Status are considered to be those with the closest and most substantive contributions to and connections with the economic and social objectives of the UN and ECOSOC. * Our predecessor WG distinguished between the INGOs with General Consultative Status and those with Special Consultative Status, with differing protections recommended for each. They did not, however, include any direction to either the GNSO Council or our present WG as to whether the distinction should be maintained for curative rights protection. We hope the above is helpful. We have added the attached documents to the WG¹s wiki space under Background Documents as well. 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

8 10

MP3 IGO WG - Monday 24 September 2014 at 1600 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Monday 24 September 2014 at 1600 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20140924-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Imran Ahmed Shah – NCUC George Kirikos - Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Val Sherman – IPC Griffin Barnett – IPC Reg Levy – RySG Kristine Dorrain – Individual David Heasley – IPC David Maher – RySG Mason Cole – RySG Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Phil Corwin – BC Nat Cohen – BC Gary Campbell - GAC Apologies: John McGrann – RrSG Paul Keating - NCUC ICANN staff: Mary Wong 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 ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 24 September 2014: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 24th September 2014 George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Paul Tattersfield:Hi, George, everyone Imran Ahmed Shah:Hi Everyone, George Kirikos:Hi Paul and Imran. Reg - M+M:Good morning, all Mason Cole:greetings all George Kirikos:Hi Reg & Mason. Reg - M+M:It appears, from the two UDRP proceedings we just read, that the IOC, at least, has no problem protecting its rights with the RPMs that are already in place for all rights holders. George Kirikos:Indeed, Reg. Jay Chapman:Happy Wednesday, everyone George Kirikos:Hi Jay. Kathy:Can we control the document? Kathy:Tx Mary Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the AC room Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Welcome Osvaldo. Nathalie Peregrine:David Maher has joined the call George Kirikos:Not everyone has joined a subgroup. Imran Ahmed Shah:Yes, Sub Group C has only Mike, Nathalie Peregrine:Phil is not on the audio bridge George Kirikos:Group B hasn't "met" yet -- we were expecting last week that more volunteers would be coming forward. Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined the AC room George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil. Philip Corwin:Apologies for joining late George Kirikos:Right, Jay.....that's why some outreach is appropriate. George Kirikos:(i.e. do a survey/mailing, based on a sample of IGOs) George Kirikos:They're lumped together because of the prior WG George Kirikos:(who didn't want to make any special rules for IGOs unless INGOs got them too....) Kathy:Can Staff please share the differences between IGO and INGOs - because it seems to have been a topic you have given good thought to. George Kirikos:[I disagree that they should be lumped together, by the way, since we shouldn't be creating 'new' law] Mary Wong:@Kathy, IGOs have an issue with submitting to national jurisdiction (as required by the UDRP & URS). Mary Wong:INGOs do not have that problem - but both groups may have problems in the TM area as they now need to be TM owners in order to use the UDRP or URS. Kathy:@Mary, tx: to which treaties are the IGOs and INGOs, as different classes, tied? Mary Wong:@Kathy, the IGOs have relied on Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Mary Wong:For INGOs, there is no specific treaty generally but for Red Cross there are the Geneva Conventions, for the IOC there is the Nairobi Treaty. Mary Wong:The presentation document has been unsync'ed Kathy:Great info, tx Mary! Kathy:But the URS applies only to New gTLDs George Kirikos:And to ccTLDs that opt in to it (e.g. .pw) Mary Wong:@Kathy, yes Kathy:And was largely intended to solve roll-out problems Kathy:With many more defenses! Mary Wong:Note, however, that one question for this WG is whether the URS should be a Consensus Policy like the UDRP Kathy:It would be hard for us to overrule the consensus against that conclusion by the STI which created the URS Gary Campbell:Hi Guys sorry to be late George Kirikos:One can view all the cases at http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx (change ruleset to "URS"). Easier to view with 50 decisions/page. Gary Campbell:Thanks George Nat Cohen:I believe that the USPS overreached early on by going after "postoffice.com" Jay Chapman:Agree, Nat Kathy:Good presentation, tx you! Nat Cohen:yes, here is the postoffice.com UDRP: Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96313.htm Nat Cohen:Though Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented and thought that the USPS should be able to seize postoffice.com Nat Cohen:The other USPS loss was for post-office.com, again Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96761.htm Reg - M+M:Well that's good, for one. Reg - M+M:(AmericanBar.org instead of aba.org—gets me everytime, too) Nat Cohen:MLB.com used to be owned by a law firm George Kirikos:PGA.com used to be owned by the Potato Growers of Alberta. Paul Tattersfield: Excellent presentation, good looking slides too Kristine, thank you. Jay Chapman:Thanks, Kristine - valuable presentation Reg - M+M:My first thought is that I'm glad that the UDRP providers are loathe to rule against acronyms because they do indeed mean a very many things. Reg - M+M:I'm sure, however, that this means that the IOC/RC/otherI/NGOs will complain that this means that their acronyms MUST be protected at the registry level, since they're not protected by UDRP Reg - M+M:however, as was seen by the documentation passed around in advance of this call, I/NGOs *ARE* protected by the UDRP process Reg - M+M:there is no evidence to suggest that the URS will be less friendly to them Mary Wong:@Reg, those types of "preventative" protections (e.g. blocking, second-level withholding from registration) were dealt with by the original PDP WG. Most of their recs - except for IGO acronyms - have been accepted by the Board. Mary Wong:On IGO acronyms, the current discussion is on the duration and scope of TMCH protection (ie there will be no blocking of second-level IGO acronyms) Imran Ahmed Shah:I have a question regarding the fee charged for the Arbitration Function and the Arbitration Panel, what happend with the fee, when the issues were not resolved with in specific type and meetings? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, I'm not quite sure I understand your question...these are administrative hearings that result in a written decision for one party or another. There is not really "issue resolution" that fails to happen... Philip Corwin:Just re-raised hand--have a Q for Mary George Kirikos:http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/how-it-works Imran Ahmed Shah:I am taking about the fee charged for the dispute resolution by ICANN regarding the new gTLDs Applications Mary Wong:@Phil, do u want to type it here? George Kirikos:(that shows how Formal Mediation is a part of the Nominet UK DRS) Nat Cohen:Kristine - thanks for the presentation. Very helpful Gary Campbell:Can someone explain to me the objectives of the 3 subgroups George Kirikos:UDRP/URS are somewhat 'all or nothing', whereas court and/or mediation can be more creative as to the outcome. Mary Wong:@Gary, primarily it is to "break down" the various research and early analysis tasks required by the WG Charter into manageable chunks that will facilitate informed discussion by the WG on what exactly (if anything) to do with the UDRP, URS or other process Philip Corwin:If the URS is not a consensus policy it would not be covered by catch-all language in RAA. So is there a specific reference to the URS in the 2013 RAA, which all registrar selers of new gTLDs are required to accept? Kathy:@Phil: URS is incorporated via the New gTLD Registry Agreements. Gary Campbell:Thanks Mary Philip Corwin:Understood, kathy. But what binds the registrant to accept the URS? Reg - M+M:ICANN requires that registries requires that registrars abide by the URS Kathy:It's part of the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement, and then passed to the Registrars (at least one way) through the New gTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement that follows. George Kirikos:Thank you, Kristine. Philip Corwin:So there is a specific refernce to the URS in the 2013 RAA? Imran Ahmed Shah:HAve you replied to my question? Mary Wong:@Phil, yes - let me look up the section Kathy:And then in the Registrar-Registrant Agreement Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran: I tried to, above....did you see that? George Kirikos:Zak Muscovitch has studied the issue of panelist selection. Mary Wong:@Phil, it's Section 3.8 of the RAA, referring specifically to the UDRP and URS for Registrars (coreresponding Registry obligation noted by Red and Kathy) Philip Corwin:Thanks Mary. Mary Wong:Here's the specific language: "During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall have in place a policy and procedures for resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names. Until ICANN adopts an alternative Consensus Policy or other Specification or Policy with respect to the resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names, Registrar shall comply with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") identified on ICANN's website (www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm) as may be modified from time to time. Registrar shall also comply with the Uniform Rapid Suspension ("URS") procedure or its replacement, as well as with any other applicable dispute resolution procedure as required by a Registry Operator for which Registrar is providing Registrar Services." George Kirikos:Here's the Muscovitch study: http://www.dnattorney.com/NAFdomainnamedisputestudy2012.shtml Imran Ahmed Shah:@Kristine , could not understand that either my question is clear, otherwise, I explained it in next lines,,,, and I also could not understand your reply.... Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, we do not handle disputes over new gTLD applications? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:<sorry, remove the question mark> Mary Wong:@Imran, are you referring to the objection and dispute resolution procedures relating to new gTLD applications? Mary Wong:If so, that is not within the scope of this WG. Imran Ahmed Shah:es, including the dispute and conflict for which the mediation panels were setup Imran Ahmed Shah:yes George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Jay Chapman:Thanks all, have a good day/week Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks, bye! Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks, Gary Campbell:Bye all

1 0

PLEASE RSVP: Pre- Los Angeles Policy Update Webinars - Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 & 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, summarizing policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the IANA Functions and the ICANN Accountability track efforts. Please RSVP via <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-2G5_ti0hTCd0j8DBcAz3o5ktoWzY1zPqeQPGqWJ68 Y/viewform> this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. Updates will also be provided on topics from ICANN's Support Organizations and Advisory Committees: . ASO and Regional Internet Registries RIR Activities . GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Working Group . GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group . GNSO Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group . ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group Final Report . ALAC Policy Advice and RALO Activities . ATLAS II Implementation Progress . GAC's Remaining Advice on new generic Top-Level Domains . GAC's Implementation of ATRT2 Recommendations . RSSAC Caucus Work Parties . SSAC Advisories and Activities The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted in English only. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Again, please RSVP via <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-2G5_ti0hTCd0j8DBcAz3o5ktoWzY1zPqeQPGqWJ68 Y/viewform> this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. We look forward to welcoming you on the Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar! Best Regards, ICANN Policy Development Support Team

1 0

Attachment (Re: Sub-Groups: volunteering and how they will work)
by Mary Wong Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Apologies - with attachment this time! From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 1:39 PM To: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Sub-Groups: volunteering and how they will work > Dear WG members, > > Following up on our call of earlier today, here is some further information on > the three Sub-Groups A, B & C (please refer to the attached document, which > was also sent around yesterday and used on the call, to see each Sub-Group¹s > assigned tasks and staff suggestions for various steps associated with each > task). > > Volunteers: > >> A - Petter Rindforth. Kristine Dorrain. Jim Bikoff, Jay Chapman, Nat Cohen >> B - Phil Corwin, Paul Keating, George Kirikos, Imran Ahmed Shah >> C - Mike Rodenbaugh >> > Please email me if you¹d like to join the work of one of these groups! In > particular, it will be good to get more volunteers for Sub-Group C. > > How the Sub-Groups will Work: > * Please let me or Steve Chan know if your Sub-Group will require assistance > with setting up calls, record keeping or the actual research tasks at hand. In > addition, either one of us will be happy to sit in on or facilitate a > Sub-Group call if the scheduling permits it, and of course provided that your > group would welcome it. > * Staff will send an email to each Sub-Group so that each member of that group > will have one another¹s email addresses. We can also create a wiki page for > each group to record/upload its work and results. > * As mentioned on the call, most of the background documents needed are > already on the WG wiki please let us know if there are documents missing you > would like to see there, or if you have difficulty finding any of them. > * Finally, as Petter noted at the end of our call, there will be no WG meeting > next week (1 October), to enable each Sub-Group to conduct its business with a > view toward reporting back to the full WG on its progress on 8 October. > > 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

IGO & INGO Lists
by Mary Wong Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Hello everyone, As some members are experiencing problems with their Confluence logins to the WG wiki space, please find attached the two lists I¹d mentioned in my last email, i.e. the GAC¹s list of IGOs and the latest ECOSOC list of INGOs with either General or Consultative Special Status. As noted previously, these represent the ³universe² of IGOs and INGOs that our WG has been chartered to evaluate and potentially develop curative rights protection and/or recommendations for. 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

IOC UDRP Decisions
by Jim Bikoff Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear All Attached are two examples of relatively recent UDRP decisions involving the IOC as Complainant (OlympicMuseum and Vancouver2010). We look forward to the call tomorrow. 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>

4 3

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IOC UDRP Decisions
by Mary Wong Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Thank you, Jim we have added these to the Background Documents section of the WG workspace, under a new section to collect research done or obtained by this WG (to distinguish them from earlier work and other efforts). 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: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 5:40 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IOC UDRP Decisions > Dear All > > > Attached are two examples of relatively recent UDRP decisions involving the > IOC as Complainant (OlympicMuseum and Vancouver2010). > > We look forward to the call tomorrow. > > 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 > > >

1 0