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

CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options
by Steve Chan June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the compilation of the Working Group’s recommendations and six (6) options related to Recommendation 5. This message is intended to kick of the consensus call process for the WG’s recommendations and remaining options under Recommendation 5. For those WG members who wish to participate in the consensus call, we ask that you respond on the email list to note your support or non-support for all recommendations (i.e., recommendations 1-4) AND the six (6) remaining options under recommendation 5. Please provide your response on or before Friday, 8 June. Subsequently, the WG Chair will consider response to the consensus call and seek to designate final consensus levels on the recommendations and options, which will be published to the WG’s email list for WG consideration. WG members will then have the opportunity to object to the designations and the WG may choose to conduct another call on Thursday, 14 June to discuss; WG members will also have the opportunity to file minority statements if applicable, which will be incorporated into a Final Report for the Council by 17 June. Note, based on the discussion on the WG’s call held on Friday, 25 May, a handful of changes were made to the attached recommendations/options document, highlighted in yellow (e.g., Recommendation 2, Recommendation 4, Option 4). In addition, footnotes were added, linking to the original rationale and suggestions made by Zak Muscovitch (Option 4), George Kirikos (Option 5) and Paul Tattersfield (Option 6). The same was not done for the first three options as those had been discussed extensively before the additional three options were added and are included unchanged from the text presented in the October 2017 poll. If you have any questions, please let us know. Best, Steve & Mary 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/

13 27

Intention to File another Section 3.7 appeal (was Re: 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 George Kirikos June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

[For those I've cc'd on this email, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/date.html and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html ("initial designations document" is attachment is at very end of the page) ] I am incredulous at Mary and Steve's nonchalant response to the email thread, seemingly ignoring the fact that the document that was sent to the mailing list today was replete with errors. I had thought that this was a product solely of Petter's creation, but it looks like there's blame to go around --- the metadata of the document that was sent to the list shows the "author" was "Mary Wong". So, it appears that the document had received multiple views by them, and even after this email thread, it seems it's "business as usual" at their end, as if nothing is wrong. Truly stunning. Besides the problems that were **already** pointed out, there's the fact that: 1. Mike Rodenbaugh's input was completely ignored! How hard is it to read: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html and then go back to: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001167.html 2. David Maher's input was completely ignored! His was the very first response at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html and his name is *nowhere* in the document! 3, Zak and Nat are listed as *supporters* of Option #3 (i.e. the arbitration), when they were against: Zak: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html "I understand *Option 3* and appreciate the objective and rationale behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form. Nat: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html "I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments- *Option #3* - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration." It's very odd to count that as "support" for Option #3 -- that's not how I read it at all, given Nat (and Zak) supported Option #1. 4. there could be even more errors (i.e. folks should double-check what was listed in that document) Does anyone truly believe that, in a week (remember, the "deadline" is supposedly June 17) we can (a) fix all the errors in the designations (b) have time for objections (i.e. the iterative process in section 3.6 of the working group guidelines), (c) review a draft final report (there were long sections missing), (d) submit comments/amend that draft final report, (e) agree to all the relevant changes for the final report, (f) leave time for those who want to make minority statements (which they can't really do until the final report is close to finalization). The most recent draft final report was from May 9: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html and there's really very little good text discussing recommendation #5 (i.e. capturing the full debate that took place, pros/cons, etc., so that a reader of the report could actually understand them). Go look at page 44 to 48 -- is that it? It's mostly spent just listing the options, and then a whole bunch of process stuff, but nothing that would lead a reader to understand why this was debated for over a year. There's obviously other sections that need to be fixed too. Remember, there's only *1* call scheduled (this Tuesday), and then no other calls are scheduled. Normally, there's a 2 week clock that *begins* when a close-to-final draft final report is circulated, *along* with the specification of the "initial designation levels" (which Petter only provided a few hours ago) -- see the examples of past PDPs I mentioned at the top of my earlier email: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html If we had a 2 week clock that started when we actually receive a new draft, then that might be reasonable. Then, maybe another week to finalize edits. But, this would be with the draft document being actively updated, and folks actively submitting comments. I don't see how that would happen, given that folks are now also getting ready for the upcoming ICANN meeting. I asked repeatedly that we keep up our weekly calls, so we could drive the work forward, but it didn't happen. Go look at the wiki -- we had a call April 19, May 10, May 25, and that was it! Huge gaps of wasted time, where we should have been doing what we're now asked to do in a single week. Anyhow, if folks believe we can finish everything in a week, that normally takes three or four weeks, convince me. I'm willing to put in the work do so, but I can't do it all. That means people actively reading the reports, agreeing *swifly* to edits (obviously takes much longer if there is debate about the changes) Otherwise, I think it's best we aim for the July GNSO Council meeting (July 19th, documents due July 9th) for finalization of our work. This would still require weekly calls, to get things edited properly. I'm going to bed, but I'll wait and see if anyone can convince me by 4 pm Toronto time on Sunday (different time zones, so some of you might fix that document Petter circulated, we might see a draft final report to review, who knows). At that time, I'll decide whether to formalize this. NB: If I do invoke a section 3.7 appeal, it's not intended to *stop* the coming call on Tuesday, or stop any of the work we're doing. It's only intended to prevent a half-baked unreviewed/unedited document to be sent to GNSO Council a week from now -- we'd still work on that, regardless of the outcome of the Section 3.7. I'll make myself readily available to Petter/Susan/Heather so they can decide things quickly. My preference would be that Susan and Heather take a look at the shoddy work represented by that document we saw a few hours ago, replete with errors, and realize that folks really need to raise the standards of the output being produced. Imposing an artificial deadline isn't good for quality control. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ P.S. Kudos to Reg for stepping up and offering to do her own summary of the feedback on Sunday morning (I intend to do the same, independently). On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. > > Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary & Steve > > On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of rlevy(a)tucows.com> wrote: > > I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. > > Reg Levy > (310) 963-7135 > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only > > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was > > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > > > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." > > > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear > > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might > > want to weigh in again). > > > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others > > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort > > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. > > > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone > > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part > > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher > > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny > > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time > > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we > > want to do it right? > > > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- > > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's > > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus > > designation levels. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the > >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, > >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative > >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial > >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we > >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* > >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group > >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation > >> Levels. > >> > >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago > >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html > >> > >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can > >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough > >> support." > >> > >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html > >> > >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." > >> > >> I don't understand what's going on there. > >> > >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, > >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have > >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus > >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] > >> > >> When Reg wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > >> > >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. > >> > >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's > >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did > >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of > >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… > >> > >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with > >> the newer responses at some point. > >> > >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is > >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not > >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. > >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually > >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the > >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might > >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most > >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). > >> > >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis > >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. > >> > >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone > >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have > >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we > >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be > >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another > >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work > >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> George Kirikos > >> 416-588-0269 > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth > >> <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> wrote: > >>> 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 for 90 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d… > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… > >>> > >>> 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: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest… [tinyurl.com] > >>> > >>> 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 Number > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ARGENTINA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-777-0519 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> ADELAIDE: > >>> > >>> 61-8-8121-4842 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> BRISBANE: > >>> > >>> 61-7-3102-0944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> CANBERRA: > >>> > >>> 61-2-6100-1944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> MELBOURNE: > >>> > >>> 61-3-9010-7713 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> PERTH: > >>> > >>> 61-8-9467-5223 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> SYDNEY: > >>> > >>> 61-2-8205-8129 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 43-1-92-81-113 > >>> > >>> 0800-005-259 > >>> > >>> BELGIUM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 32-2-400-9861 > >>> > >>> 0800-3-8795 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> RIO DE JANEIRO: > >>> > >>> 55-21-40421490 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> SAO PAULO: > >>> > >>> 55-11-3958-0779 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> CHILE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1230-020-2863 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA A: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-712-1670 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA B: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-120-1670 > >>> > >>> COLOMBIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 01800-9-156474 > >>> > >>> CROATIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-08-06-309 > >>> > >>> CZECH REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 420-2-25-98-56-64 > >>> > >>> 800-700-177 > >>> > >>> DENMARK > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 45-7014-0284 > >>> > >>> 8088-8324 > >>> > >>> EGYPT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800000-9029 > >>> > >>> ESTONIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-011-1093 > >>> > >>> FINLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 358-9-5424-7162 > >>> > >>> 0-800-9-14610 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> LYON: > >>> > >>> 33-4-26-69-12-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> MARSEILLE: > >>> > >>> 33-4-86-06-00-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> PARIS: > >>> > >>> 33-1-70-70-60-72 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> GERMANY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 49-69-2222-20362 > >>> > >>> 0800-664-4247 > >>> > >>> GREECE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 30-80-1-100-0687 > >>> > >>> 00800-12-7312 > >>> > >>> HONG KONG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 852-3001-3863 > >>> > >>> 800-962-856 > >>> > >>> HUNGARY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 36-1-700-8856 > >>> > >>> 06-800-12755 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA A: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-852-1268 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA B: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-001-6305 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA C: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1800-300-00491 > >>> > >>> INDONESIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-803-011-3982 > >>> > >>> IRELAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 353-1-246-7646 > >>> > >>> 1800-992-368 > >>> > >>> ISRAEL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-80-9216162 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> MILAN: > >>> > >>> 39-02-3600-6007 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> ROME: > >>> > >>> 39-06-8751-6018 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> TORINO: > >>> > >>> 39-011-510-0118 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> OSAKA: > >>> > >>> 81-6-7878-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> TOKYO: > >>> > >>> 81-3-6868-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> LATVIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-3185 > >>> > >>> LUXEMBOURG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 352-27-000-1364 > >>> > >>> 8002-9246 > >>> > >>> MALAYSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-800-81-3065 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> GUADALAJARA (JAL): > >>> > >>> 52-33-3208-7310 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MEXICO CITY: > >>> > >>> 52-55-5062-9110 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MONTERREY: > >>> > >>> 52-81-2482-0610 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> NETHERLANDS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 31-20-718-8588 > >>> > >>> 0800-023-4378 > >>> > >>> NEW ZEALAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 64-9-970-4771 > >>> > >>> 0800-447-722 > >>> > >>> NORWAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 47-21-590-062 > >>> > >>> 800-15157 > >>> > >>> PANAMA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 011-001-800-5072065 > >>> > >>> PERU > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-53713 > >>> > >>> PHILIPPINES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 63-2-858-3716 > >>> > >>> 1800-111-42453 > >>> > >>> POLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-1212572 > >>> > >>> PORTUGAL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 351-2-10054705 > >>> > >>> 8008-14052 > >>> > >>> ROMANIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 40-31-630-01-79 > >>> > >>> > >>> RUSSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8-10-8002-0144011 > >>> > >>> SAUDI ARABIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-8-110087 > >>> > >>> SINGAPORE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 65-6883-9230 > >>> > >>> 800-120-4663 > >>> > >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 421-2-322-422-25 > >>> > >>> 0800-002066 > >>> > >>> SOUTH AFRICA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-09-80414 > >>> > >>> SOUTH KOREA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 82-2-6744-1083 > >>> > >>> 00798-14800-7352 > >>> > >>> SPAIN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 34-91-414-25-33 > >>> > >>> 800-300-053 > >>> > >>> SWEDEN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 46-8-566-19-348 > >>> > >>> 0200-884-622 > >>> > >>> SWITZERLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 41-44-580-6398 > >>> > >>> 0800-120-032 > >>> > >>> TAIWAN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 886-2-2795-7379 > >>> > >>> 00801-137-797 > >>> > >>> THAILAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-800-1206-66056 > >>> > >>> TURKEY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-151-0516 > >>> > >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-35702370 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> BIRMINGHAM: > >>> > >>> 44-121-210-9025 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> GLASGOW: > >>> > >>> 44-141-202-3225 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LEEDS: > >>> > >>> 44-113-301-2125 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LONDON: > >>> > >>> 44-20-7108-6370 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> MANCHESTER: > >>> > >>> 44-161-601-1425 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> URUGUAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-413-598-3421 > >>> > >>> USA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-517-345-9004 > >>> > >>> 866-692-5726 > >>> > >>> VENEZUELA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-1-00-3702 > >>> > >>> VIETNAM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 120-11751 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >

2 3

DIDP request by George Kirikos in relation to documents relevant to IGO PDP Section 3.7 appeal, and the appeal process in general
by George Kirikos June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

Dear ICANN, As you might be aware, I filed a Section 3.7 appeal in the IGO PDP working group, due to violations of the working group guidelines. Rather than treating that appeal with the gravity it deserved, there has been mere lip service paid to it by the relevant GNSO Council members and ICANN staff. Indeed, GNSO Council contemplates *changing* the GNSO guidelines in the future, potentially strengthening the power of the Chair of the working group by reducing the ability of the Section 3.7 appeal process to be used effectively. See: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021299.html Section 3.4 (pages 6-7 of the attached PDF to that email, at the bottom). One can also review the transcripts of GNSO Council calls over the past few months, where reference has been made to my Section 3.7 appeal, and how it has been characterized in a one-sided manner against its initiator (myself). I ask for the following documents/information/recordings because: 1. ICANN's bylaws require transparency to the maximum extent feasible. 2. it is contemplated that there will be reform of Section 3.7 of the working group guidelines in the future, so it is important for the public to understand fully how the process was used and responded to (especially from the perspective of GNSO Council, Co-Chairs, and staff). 3. The IGO PDP is nearing completion, and I wish to refer to these documents/recordings in a Minority Report and/or a post-PDP Working Group Self-Assessment (see Section 7.0 of the Working Group Guidelines for more info about that Self-Assessment). 4. NTIA has recently posed questions in a Notice of Inquiry: http://domainincite.com/23072-us-asks-if-it-should-take-back-control-over-i… and I believe accountability of ICANN (including its appeal mechanisms) is a very important topic that should be addressed in a response to that input. ICANN claims to be a "bottoms-up" organization, and steps that are taken or contemplated to reduce the ability for the "bottom" to appeal decisions at the "top" should be discussed. 5. ICANN has *already* posted a public copy of my own meeting with Heather Forrest and ICANN staff: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call That was posted without any delay after my Feb 20, 2018 call, see the Wiki page history of edits: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpreviousversions.action?pageId=794352… which shows it was updated February 21 and 22. 6. There is no expectation of privacy of any of these documents (see point #5 for how my own call was handled), and even if there was, the public interest in seeing these important accountability mechanisms in action outweighs any privacy interests. 7. If anything inappropriate took place in those calls and/or email exchanges, the individual(s) should be held accountable. It's transparency that helps to ensure that accountability takes place. The documents/recordings/transcripts I seek are as follows: A] The recordings/transcripts and all related documents (including any emails) of the call between the IGO PDP co-chairs (Phil and Petter) and Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) that took place within days following the February 20, 2018 call I had with Ms. Forrest in relation to the Section 3.7 appeal (my call is public, see point #5 above). This has been requested repeatedly, e.g. see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html (see attachment at very bottom) paragraph 3 ("Error #1"). B] Recordings/transcripts and all related documents (including any emails) of another call that took place between the co-chairs of the PDP and Ms. Forrest and Ms Kawaguchi (and ICANN staff) prior to the issuance of a "Summary Report", as was discussed at paragraphs 10-12 ("Error #3") of the document in A] above. This was requested on April 19th: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001117.html "I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20, 2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was posted: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening." C] All other documents and recordings (including emails) between ICANN Staff, GNSO Council members and the IGO PDP co-chairs relating to the handling of the Section 3.7 appeal. D] All documents and recordings (including emails) between ICANN Staff and IGO PDP co-chairs relating to the anonymous survey held in October 2017 (a process that clearly violated the working group guidelines transparency requirements, and led to the eventual filing of the Section 3.7 appeal in December 2017). See: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/date.html for the starting point of that anonymous poll on the mailing list. These documents in [D] thus predate the actual filing of the Section 3.7 appeal (but are critical in understanding how we got there). IGO PDP co-chairs have often said that ICANN staff provided guidance that various actions were permitted -- let's see the actual discussions that took place. If you need any further details from me on responding to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Re: [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 Mary Wong June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

Dear all, Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of rlevy(a)tucows.com> wrote: I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. Reg Levy (310) 963-7135 Sent from my iPhone. > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might > want to weigh in again). > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we > want to do it right? > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus > designation levels. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… > > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation >> Levels. >> >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html >> >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough >> support." >> >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html >> >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." >> >> I don't understand what's going on there. >> >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] >> >> When Reg wrote: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html >> >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. >> >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… >> >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with >> the newer responses at some point. >> >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). >> >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. >> >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&… >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth >> <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> wrote: >>> 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 for 90 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d… >>> >>> >>> >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… >>> >>> 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: >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest… [tinyurl.com] >>> >>> 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 Number >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ARGENTINA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 0800-777-0519 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> ADELAIDE: >>> >>> 61-8-8121-4842 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> BRISBANE: >>> >>> 61-7-3102-0944 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> CANBERRA: >>> >>> 61-2-6100-1944 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> MELBOURNE: >>> >>> 61-3-9010-7713 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> PERTH: >>> >>> 61-8-9467-5223 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRALIA >>> >>> SYDNEY: >>> >>> 61-2-8205-8129 >>> >>> 1-800-657-260 >>> >>> AUSTRIA >>> >>> >>> >>> 43-1-92-81-113 >>> >>> 0800-005-259 >>> >>> BELGIUM >>> >>> >>> >>> 32-2-400-9861 >>> >>> 0800-3-8795 >>> >>> BRAZIL >>> >>> RIO DE JANEIRO: >>> >>> 55-21-40421490 >>> >>> 0800-7610651 >>> >>> BRAZIL >>> >>> SAO PAULO: >>> >>> 55-11-3958-0779 >>> >>> 0800-7610651 >>> >>> CHILE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1230-020-2863 >>> >>> CHINA >>> >>> CHINA A: >>> >>> 86-400-810-4789 >>> >>> 10800-712-1670 >>> >>> CHINA >>> >>> CHINA B: >>> >>> 86-400-810-4789 >>> >>> 10800-120-1670 >>> >>> COLOMBIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 01800-9-156474 >>> >>> CROATIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 080-08-06-309 >>> >>> CZECH REPUBLIC >>> >>> >>> >>> 420-2-25-98-56-64 >>> >>> 800-700-177 >>> >>> DENMARK >>> >>> >>> >>> 45-7014-0284 >>> >>> 8088-8324 >>> >>> EGYPT >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 0800000-9029 >>> >>> ESTONIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 800-011-1093 >>> >>> FINLAND >>> >>> >>> >>> 358-9-5424-7162 >>> >>> 0-800-9-14610 >>> >>> FRANCE >>> >>> LYON: >>> >>> 33-4-26-69-12-85 >>> >>> 080-511-1496 >>> >>> FRANCE >>> >>> MARSEILLE: >>> >>> 33-4-86-06-00-85 >>> >>> 080-511-1496 >>> >>> FRANCE >>> >>> PARIS: >>> >>> 33-1-70-70-60-72 >>> >>> 080-511-1496 >>> >>> GERMANY >>> >>> >>> >>> 49-69-2222-20362 >>> >>> 0800-664-4247 >>> >>> GREECE >>> >>> >>> >>> 30-80-1-100-0687 >>> >>> 00800-12-7312 >>> >>> HONG KONG >>> >>> >>> >>> 852-3001-3863 >>> >>> 800-962-856 >>> >>> HUNGARY >>> >>> >>> >>> 36-1-700-8856 >>> >>> 06-800-12755 >>> >>> INDIA >>> >>> INDIA A: >>> >>> >>> >>> 000-800-852-1268 >>> >>> INDIA >>> >>> INDIA B: >>> >>> >>> >>> 000-800-001-6305 >>> >>> INDIA >>> >>> INDIA C: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1800-300-00491 >>> >>> INDONESIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 001-803-011-3982 >>> >>> IRELAND >>> >>> >>> >>> 353-1-246-7646 >>> >>> 1800-992-368 >>> >>> ISRAEL >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1-80-9216162 >>> >>> ITALY >>> >>> MILAN: >>> >>> 39-02-3600-6007 >>> >>> 800-986-383 >>> >>> ITALY >>> >>> ROME: >>> >>> 39-06-8751-6018 >>> >>> 800-986-383 >>> >>> ITALY >>> >>> TORINO: >>> >>> 39-011-510-0118 >>> >>> 800-986-383 >>> >>> JAPAN >>> >>> OSAKA: >>> >>> 81-6-7878-2631 >>> >>> 0066-33-132439 >>> >>> JAPAN >>> >>> TOKYO: >>> >>> 81-3-6868-2631 >>> >>> 0066-33-132439 >>> >>> LATVIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8000-3185 >>> >>> LUXEMBOURG >>> >>> >>> >>> 352-27-000-1364 >>> >>> 8002-9246 >>> >>> MALAYSIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1-800-81-3065 >>> >>> MEXICO >>> >>> GUADALAJARA (JAL): >>> >>> 52-33-3208-7310 >>> >>> 001-866-376-9696 >>> >>> MEXICO >>> >>> MEXICO CITY: >>> >>> 52-55-5062-9110 >>> >>> 001-866-376-9696 >>> >>> MEXICO >>> >>> MONTERREY: >>> >>> 52-81-2482-0610 >>> >>> 001-866-376-9696 >>> >>> NETHERLANDS >>> >>> >>> >>> 31-20-718-8588 >>> >>> 0800-023-4378 >>> >>> NEW ZEALAND >>> >>> >>> >>> 64-9-970-4771 >>> >>> 0800-447-722 >>> >>> NORWAY >>> >>> >>> >>> 47-21-590-062 >>> >>> 800-15157 >>> >>> PANAMA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 011-001-800-5072065 >>> >>> PERU >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 0800-53713 >>> >>> PHILIPPINES >>> >>> >>> >>> 63-2-858-3716 >>> >>> 1800-111-42453 >>> >>> POLAND >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 00-800-1212572 >>> >>> PORTUGAL >>> >>> >>> >>> 351-2-10054705 >>> >>> 8008-14052 >>> >>> ROMANIA >>> >>> >>> >>> 40-31-630-01-79 >>> >>> >>> RUSSIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8-10-8002-0144011 >>> >>> SAUDI ARABIA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 800-8-110087 >>> >>> SINGAPORE >>> >>> >>> >>> 65-6883-9230 >>> >>> 800-120-4663 >>> >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC >>> >>> >>> >>> 421-2-322-422-25 >>> >>> 0800-002066 >>> >>> SOUTH AFRICA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 080-09-80414 >>> >>> SOUTH KOREA >>> >>> >>> >>> 82-2-6744-1083 >>> >>> 00798-14800-7352 >>> >>> SPAIN >>> >>> >>> >>> 34-91-414-25-33 >>> >>> 800-300-053 >>> >>> SWEDEN >>> >>> >>> >>> 46-8-566-19-348 >>> >>> 0200-884-622 >>> >>> SWITZERLAND >>> >>> >>> >>> 41-44-580-6398 >>> >>> 0800-120-032 >>> >>> TAIWAN >>> >>> >>> >>> 886-2-2795-7379 >>> >>> 00801-137-797 >>> >>> THAILAND >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 001-800-1206-66056 >>> >>> TURKEY >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 00-800-151-0516 >>> >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8000-35702370 >>> >>> UNITED KINGDOM >>> >>> BIRMINGHAM: >>> >>> 44-121-210-9025 >>> >>> 0808-238-6029 >>> >>> UNITED KINGDOM >>> >>> GLASGOW: >>> >>> 44-141-202-3225 >>> >>> 0808-238-6029 >>> >>> UNITED KINGDOM >>> >>> LEEDS: >>> >>> 44-113-301-2125 >>> >>> 0808-238-6029 >>> >>> UNITED KINGDOM >>> >>> LONDON: >>> >>> 44-20-7108-6370 >>> >>> 0808-238-6029 >>> >>> UNITED KINGDOM >>> >>> MANCHESTER: >>> >>> 44-161-601-1425 >>> >>> 0808-238-6029 >>> >>> URUGUAY >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 000-413-598-3421 >>> >>> USA >>> >>> >>> >>> 1-517-345-9004 >>> >>> 866-692-5726 >>> >>> VENEZUELA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 0800-1-00-3702 >>> >>> VIETNAM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 120-11751 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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

Paul Keating's Concensus Votes
by Paul Keating June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Petter and Mary, I have been unable to respond to prior emails this week. However, I wanted to reiterate my position regarding the various options. Below is my email of May 8, 2018. My response to #6 was subsequently modified to a Yes, Accordingly, please note my consensus votes as follows: Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: YES In case I am unable to attend the upcoming call please note the above for the record. Thank you, Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus To: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es>, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Having been asked by several people for my reasoning behind my votes, I thought I would simply post it openly. Option 1: Yes. This is a simple solution that returns the process to a balance. It leaves the IGO with the complete freedom of choice (just as it had in filing the UDRP). The consequence (voiding the UDRP) is a simple and easily understood consequence of seeking the benefit of immunity AND does not bog us down in discussions as to whether immunity existed or whether it had already been waived by the IGO via the UDRP filing. Option 2: NO. Although a nice attempt to seek compromise, I found it too confusing and feared it would lead to us becoming bogged down in discussion over details. Option 3: NO. I am most opposed to the idea of this WG attempting to create any form of alternative dispute system. This is more appropriately addressed by a wider and more fully functioning WG such as that addressing the RPM. Option 4: YES. I am fully in favor of suggesting that the other WG handle this matter. They are a larger group with more professionals on board. They are also experienced in tackling complex issues. I know this because I am a member of both this and the RPM WG. Option 5: NO. Issues of ³in rem² and declaratory relief are inherently common law principles and are not shared by many jurisdictions, including those based upon civil law (that which looks only to statutes and not to prior judicial decisions as the reference point). This would require too much discussion by this WG to achieve true consensus as to what is or is not involved in turning this option into the more robust descriptions necessary. Also, I have had no difficulty in dealing with post-UDRP claims based upon this distinction (suing a party or suing a thing). I also am unsure if a US in rem action would be permitted to continue in the absence of an IGO that successfully asserted sovereign immunity. So, overall, too complex for this WG given its directive. Option 6: NO. I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program. I ENCOURAGE Brian and anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program. Initiating such a program would not require any modification to to the UDRP as it could be entirely voluntary. HOWEVER, to the extent that this Option 6 would require discussion and consensus surrounding the rules underlying an obligatory mediation program, such is beyond the scope of this WG and not likely to have a successful outcome, particularly given what has been transpiring in this WG to date. So, there you have my thoughts. I ENCOURAGE all WG members to respond to George¹s email regardless of your views. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

4 3

Food For Thought -- Option #7 (?) -- model UDRP/URS after British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal
by George Kirikos June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Hi folks, Probably too late to come up with new options in this PDP at this late stage, but here's some food for thought for how the IGO "quirk of process" issue as well as the Yoyo.email "cause of action" issue in the UK can be completely solved, with various changes to the UDRP/URS process. In particular, I very recently stumbled upon the "Civil Resolution Tribunal", which is Canada's first online tribunal that handles various small claims and strata (condominium) disputes in British Columbia: https://civilresolutionbc.ca/ In particular, there's one important part of their rules which (if emulated) would completely solve the issues we're having, see: https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/how-the-process-ends/#what-i… "If you disagree with the CRT’s final decision on a small claims matter, including a default decision, you can pay a fee and file a Notice of Objection with the CRT. The Notice of Objection must be filed within 28 days after a party receives a CRT decision. The CRT cannot issue an order in a small claims dispute until the deadline for filing a Notice of Objection expires. If a Notice of Objection is filed, the CRT decision is not enforceable. If any party wants to continue any of the claims that were included in the dispute, that party must file a Notice of CRT Claim in the BC Provincial Court." So, basically, if one pays the appropriate fees and files a "Notice of Objection", the decision is not enforceable, and further court action (in an established offline court) would be required. In a UDRP/URS context, this means that there'd be no reversal of the roles of plaintiff/defendant in the court, compared with the complainant/respondent in the UDRP/URS procedure. Thus, the UK cause of action issue (from Yoyo.email) doesn't arise, as the TM holder would be the complainat in the court case (if the UDRP/URS decision became not enforceable). Similarly, there'd be no need for any "mutual jurisdiction" clause to be made by a complainant (which may or may not be giving up immunity for the IGO). In any event, if there was a "Notice of Objection", the IGO would then be the complainant in any court case, if they wanted to pursue the matter further. To prevent "gaming" of the notice of objections, various court costs can be assessed in the courts later on, if the party who filed the notice of objection did no better in the court. From that same page: "If the person who filed the Notice of Objection does not have a better outcome in the BC Provincial Court than in the CRT’s decision, the BC Provincial Court may order that party to pay a penalty to the other party" There are great advantages to such a system, that protect due process for all sides, and so it's something we can consider learning from in the RPM PDP later on (unless folks want to consider this an Option #7, although there'd be more work to be done). It can obviously go along with Option #4. Option #1 essentially accomplishes the exact same thing, preserving the natural complainant/defendant rules, without the role reversal. The above simply adds the issue of penalties/costs, to prevent any gaming. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

REMINDER TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar
by Terri Agnew June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:51 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-23-en Register Now: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar - 12 June 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two webinar sessions to assist with the community's preparations for the ICANN62 Policy Forum: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar Tuesday, 12 June 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The presentation materials will be translated into Spanish, and posted following the Webinar with the recordings of the sessions <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. Please register via <https://goo.gl/vZw8kM> this form by 11 June 2018! In this 90-minute webinar, the Policy Development Support Team will summarize the key policy activities taking place across the ICANN community. The Team will also answer your questions about ongoing community policy and advisory work and discuss what to expect at the ICANN62Policy Forum. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the <https://goo.gl/forms/dVbmhQOT8sakSsmg2> registration form or by email to <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN62, the "Pre-ICANN62 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN62 Edition" will be published by Tuesday, 5 June 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will cover during the webinar, such as: * The cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN62: * Geographic Names at the Top-Level (Work Track 5) * Update from the Registration Directory Service-WHOIS2 Review Team * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance, Access to WHOIS and Accreditation * The expected Initial Report from the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group * Presentation of the Final CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Recommendations * The various policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next steps in relation to Registration Directory Services policy work * Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community: Next steps, implementation, and ALACsessions during ICANN62 * GDPR and Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover discussions * At-Large discussion on new gTLDs and Work Tracks 1-5 * Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) Policy Hot Topics * GAC discussions on .amazon, IGO protections and 2-character codes at the second level * Board-GAC GDPR consultations * RSSAC statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops (RSSAC033) * SSAC work concerning name collisions * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO sessions on disaster and recovery and business continuity, ccNSO members meeting sessions, and Tech Day. * GAC onboarding initiatives * Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop (RSSAC034) To complement this Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar, the GNSO Policy Development Support Team will host, with the Council leadership and Policy Development Process (PDP) working group chairs, a GNSOpolicy-focused webinar on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes. This webinar is intended to serve as a replacement for the previously-offered GNSO PDP updates provided during the GNSO weekend sessions and will assist the community in preparing for GNSO policy-related discussions at ICANN62. If you would like to participate in the GNSO Policy Webinar, please register <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z5ENBC3wa2IOvAeYr27-pGU0lJIEeZCmgZkpAo2l0S 0/edit> here. The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN62!

1 0

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG meeting on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording below and the attendance and WebEx chat attached for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-25may18-en.mp3 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…> ** 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/hyAFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Suggested language modification for Recommendation 4
by Corwin, Philip May 25, 2018

May 25, 2018

Here's my suggestion, as requested during our WG call today--- Current language: 4. In accordance with GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs, the Working Group recommends that ICANN investigate the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs. Proposed language: 4. In accordance with GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs as well as the Charter language requiring the Working Group to consider "The need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes", and in recognition that this Working Group has no authority to obligate the expenditure of ICANN funds, the Working Group recognizes that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is one that must be addressed directly through discussions between the ICANN Board with the GAC and IGOs, while further noting that many Working Group members believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the complainant. Feel free to treat this as a starting point and further modify it - the current language seems to imply an endorsement of possible subsidization when that does not appear to be a consensus view within the WG. 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

1 0