Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 1600 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-27may15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI03ZqpsvAYdkMhrgWmNqMrAAh1K9BZIMYEUibqnHu14EmACIWc7Wj0BMs7nWvk8R2Tleox1I-3D_QuA5zZR9ZZ7J1F2FeF-2FOsgm1hgIDcBrAX2P7Ezxmql7ckJc4ios1-2BxObAoz2rzLSI3c4QB1NGo7bw7XrBjpRCbz74w4vzk48UxZMFoBBQBQaQ0ePdiOjdJ30sQNHkokOf-2F2p-2FBvMgKvMhzp-2B4u8fP-2BRrSytHe2KCf2HpQmtSbpezMgNTUG57PiORAPesOotpHA-2BC4pSmXJRsVmpbNaLqzgodGdBfd-2Fh6OOhVd0bR9pyZyc2DbNKJY-2FmGdnsO-2FpmV55ls6GqYHrQ7sPWxfQ9Q-2FcGGeSA-2FF1blBAMb-2FVpXmE-2FtZNc9-2BusMA4ReeqhE6KpmaICUYYmBx2-2BNtycMoDRcGGO-2F-2FBYY-2Bq6K73CMLb5C38Uwuuph4fmPIh3kxxotPxL3trq1JLvSd9sYvZxFKGGN0E6FXqH412swNIA-2FPq6-2FhMcSfvrDTvRHNvV6-2Bqo2h3ohNTLIuelZXgK-2F28qh-2B99kH3EJX07C8QIganmgDGtBYHvElDILl97r7SCz1b0IWC0Q> On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar><http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>may<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Val Sherman - IPC Jay Chapman – Individual Jim Bikoff – IPC Paul Keating - NCUC Kristine Dorrain- Individual Paul Tattersfield - Individual Gary Campbell - GAC David Heasley - IPC Imran Ahmed Shah - Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa - NCUC Mason Cole – RySG Lori Schulman - IPC ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Amy Bivins 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 Wednesday, 27 May 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 27 May 2015 George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Jay Chapman:Hey George. Hi everyone George Kirikos:Hi Jay. How's it going? Petter Rindforth:Hi there! George Kirikos:Hi Petter. How are you? Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Val Sherman:Hi All George Kirikos:Hi Paul and Val. Petter Rindforth:I'm fine, calling from a sunny Sweden :-) Mary Wong:Nathalie and I are in Istanbul for the annual planning meeting of the whole Policy Secretariat - though I don't know how to say hello in Turkish. I will learn! Philip Corwin:Hello. Waiting for operator Philip Corwin:On the phone now Paul Tattersfield:Well done in the hearings Phil :) Philip Corwin:Thanks Paul. I enjoy testifying ;-) Mary Wong:Document is unsync'd so everyone can scroll Kristine Dorrain-NAF:It's there. George Kirikos:They didn't really answer Question #2. Nathalie Peregrine:Imran Ahmed Shah has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Paul Keating has joined the AC room George Kirikos:While IGOs may feel that way, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows a counterbalance. George Kirikos:http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ George Kirikos:"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law." George Kirikos:Note the words *national tribunals*, in particular. Paul Tattersfield:George, similar conflicts can be found with IGOs and employment law George Kirikos:Yep, and we've seen court decisions which differ dramatically from IGO's claimed rights. George Kirikos:I sent an email to the list (might take a while to be received) providing a dictionary definition of dogma. George Kirikos:dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritativewithout adequate grounds (Webster's definition). George Kirikos:Without having the IGO response, probably a meeting wouldn't be beneficial. Mary Wong:@Phil, great point - I'll make sure Mason is aware. Mary Wong:@George, re "Other Issues", staff just checked out initial request to the GAC and yes, as I'd guessed earlier, it refers to our other Charter questions. George Kirikos:+1 Jim George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Philip Corwin:Agree completely, Jim. We can't wait forever on the IGOs. George Kirikos:With the summer rapidly approaching, they might decide to not reply until September or October. Paul keating:I agree completely with reminding them. It is difficult to feel concern for someone who cannot be bothered to fight for their own position. George Kirikos:We know it's not absolute. Paul keating:I think at least we need to research teh immunity issue. George Kirikos:Yes, Paul. The briefing note should append the various court decisions that have been brought to the attention of the group, rather than just abstract "legislation". Mary Wong:The document Ptter is referring to is on screen now Mary Wong:*Petter George Kirikos:That 2003 WIPO proposal would not be accepable, as it would still preclude court action. It's court action which holds the process ultimately accountable. Steve Chan:@George, that's sort of my point. The capable research done by this group has a fair chance to be consistent with independent legal research? Paul keating:Phil, I thoughgt we had requested taht Staff was to request funding for such a research project. George Kirikos:Right, Steve. Steve Chan:But, independent validation of our research is valuable of course. George Kirikos:The arbitration process still has the problem that it's "all or nothing", i.e. lose the domain name as punishment, rather than correcting any alleged infringement, money damages, etc. George Kirikos:It's supposed to be simple and clear. Unfortunately, it's not always been that way. Philip Corwin:We want an expert expert ;-) Paul keating:Scope should focus generall upon the extent to which immunity is wavied as a result of cdisputes arising out of or in connection with trademark rights asserted by teh entity. Very s imple. George Kirikos:Right, the limited waiver aspect. George Kirikos:Take a look at the reasons why the US doesn't participate in the International Criminal Court. Paul keating:@Mary with all respect the 2nd portion (due process) is not an i ssue for the scope. Lets deal with the 1st issue of immunity. George Kirikos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Co... Paul keating:@Petter, I would like to resolve this issue during today's call. Mary Wong:@Paul, ok sure - that's the kind of thing we're looking for guidance on :) George Kirikos:Lack of due process, Jury trial, Military justice, Incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution, etc. Paul keating:please look at my proposed scope in teh cate above. Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks - that's not quite what George and Jim seem to be suggesting (re scope). George Kirikos:Fundamental = code word for "don't challenge us on this" = Axiomatic = Dogma Paul keating:@Petter, suggestion for scope. To what extent may they assert immunity for claims arising out of or in connection with claims arising from trademark rights asserted by the entity. Paul Tattersfield:The IGO’s may not be forthcoming because they have stated their position and they don’t want to be seen to be “negotiating” away elements of what they are seeking Paul keating:this allows the expert to focus on teh actual issue (Trademarks). The opinion could focus on whether or not such activities (caliming rights under trademark) is compatible with or consistent with the fundamental basis upon which immunity is based. Paul keating:thank you Paul keating:@Mary, this is the UDRP. It is ALL about trademark. If they dont have a trademark claim they have no basis for the complaint Mary Wong:@Paul, understood - one issue I think that may raise is that not too many international law experts will also be willing or able to provide that specific type of advice re TMs. Philip Corwin:Agree, Paul K, we are talking about TMs, not core IGO functions Mary Wong:@Paul, question - the IGOs are not actually asserting TM rights. Did I misunderstand/get wrong your suggested scope question? Did you mean the IGOs as the entities or some other party? George Kirikos:+1, Phil. If an international arbitration panel consisted of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian panelists, it's likely to find much differently than a US court, for elements like free speech, fair use, etc. Philip Corwin:That is exactly my concern, George. ADNDRC is one of the two accredited URS providers and is HQ'd in China George Kirikos:In essense, forcing international arbitration by claiming "immunity" is a means to engage in forum shopping. George Kirikos:And forum shopping has long been a concern with UDRP/URS, etc. Paul keating:@Jim and also reminding them that we have not received any response from teh "constituents" of teh iissue. George Kirikos:We're looking for facts/evidence, in other words, from the IGOs. George Kirikos:Not just position statements. Mary Wong:Note that the IGOs are also observers in the GAC, so this can also be brought up by Petter, Phil and Mason if there's a meeting in Buenos Aires. Mary Wong:With the GAC group working on the issue that is George Kirikos:Are we meeting next week? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I have another meeting, talk to you soon. Mary Wong:We will proceed to schedule the next WG call for Wednesday 10 June then. George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Have a great day. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks everyone, bye. Philip Corwin:Bye all