Dear All,<div><br /></div><div>What we have discussed on several meetings is also ”Considering
and explaining other possibilities”. </div><div><br /></div><div>That is in fact a way to formulate - if such - our conclusion that there may not be any needs for amending UDRP or creating a new dispute resolution policy, but rather to create and add some formal clarifications. Seems that we have a good ground for discussion later on today. </div><div><br /></div><div>Best,</div><div>Petter<br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br />-- <br />Petter Rindforth, LL M
<br />
<br />Fenix Legal KB
<br />Stureplan 4c, 4tr
<br />114 35 Stockholm
<br />Sweden
<br />Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
<br />Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
<br />E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu
<br />www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />
<br />
<br />NOTICE
<br />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.
<br />Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />Thank you<br /><br /><p>28 april 2015, George Kirikos &lt;icann@leap.com&gt; skrev:</p><blockquote type="cite"><div class="oneComWebmail-mail"><div class="oneComWebmail-body">Respectfully, I don't think in #4 that those are the 2 choices before<br />this PDP at this stage? Another option, perhaps the leading one,<br />includes "making no changes at all" to existing DRPs, and instead<br />focus on education, which might be a very legitimate finding "based on<br />WG discussions from prior meetings".<br /><br />Although, I suppose "making no changes at all" might be considered as<br />a (very uninteresting) subset of "amending existing processes" ---<br />i.e. in no way amending them.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />George Kirikos<br />416-588-0269<br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br /><br /><br />On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Mary Wong &lt;<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br /><blockquote>Dear WG members,<br /><br />With apologies for the slight delay, here is the proposed agenda for our<br />next WG call, scheduled for Wednesday 29 April 2015 at 1600 UTC:<br /><br />Roll call/updates to SOI<br />Summary of GAC advice to ICANN Board concerning protections for IGO names<br />and acronyms (see attached)<br />Review status of GNSO work concerning preventative and curative rights<br />protections for IGO names and acronyms (staff to update)<br />Discuss merits and disadvantages of amending existing dispute resolution<br />processes compared to developing a new and separate procedure (based on WG<br />discussions from prior meetings)<br />Next steps/next meeting<br /><br />Thanks and cheers<br />Mary<br /><br />Mary Wong<br />Senior Policy Director<br />Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)<br />Telephone: +1 603 574 4892<br />Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br />Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br /><a target="_blank" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br /></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br />Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br />Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br /><a target="_blank" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br /></div></div></blockquote></div>