Not sure others experience it but I could not join online today after attempting 3-4 times and once even early. I was placed in a que and the message said I would be connected. Unfortunately I was never connected. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Sep 29, 2016, at 8:32 PM, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you Lori, I will go ahead and note your apology – have a good rest of your day!
Best, Michelle
From: <owner-gnso-secs@icann.org> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
My belated apologies. I had a conflict, again, this week.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:25 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and MP3 recording for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-29sep16-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]
On page: https://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/en/group-activities/calendar
Attendees: David Maher - PIR George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Keating - NCUC Paul Tattersfiled – Individual Petter Rindforth - IPC Phil Corwin - BC Osvaldo Noa - ISPCP
Apologies: Mason Cole – RySG
ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Emily Barabas Michelle DeSmyter
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Bgy4Aw[community.icann.org]
Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter
------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 29 September 2016 Petter Rindforth: Hi George, welcome!
George Kirikos: Hi folks.
George Kirikos: Hi Petter.
Michelle DeSmyter: Hi there George and Petter!
George Kirikos: Hi Michelle.
Petter Rindforth: Hi! Calling in from another conference today, so I hope that you will not hear to much external noice.
Paul Tattersfield: Hi everyone
George Kirikos: Welcome Paul.
George Kirikos: I can hear you, Petter.
Philip Corwin: Good day all
George Kirikos: Hi Phil.
Mary Wong: Document is unsync'ed for all to scroll.
George Kirikos: (we're at the bottom of page 6, top of page 7)
George Kirikos: There was a very good piece in the NY Times about the dangers of arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0[nytimes.com]
Jay Chapman: for clarification - what color are the changes attributable to staff?
George Kirikos: More and more federal agencies in the US are also moving against arbitration, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/dealbook/arbitration-nursing-homes-elder-abuse-harassment-claims.html?_r=0[nytimes.com]
Mary Wong: Hi Jay, on screen tje staff changes display in orange in this section
Jay Chapman: got it. thanks, Mary
George Kirikos: A third piece worth reading, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privatization-of-the-justice-system.html[nytimes.com]
Mary Wong: No worries - it's starting to look quite colorful, we know. You can also see more clearly in the Word document who made what changes, and in what color.
Jay Chapman: 10-4
Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, that was the intent of adding "published" - to make clear it's a publicly available document, not just something sent to the GAC.
Philip Corwin: @George--those US cases involve instances in which consumers have been required to waive their access to court, including the bringing of class actions, and to only use arbitration for compalints. very different than UDRP/URS, which are options in addition to court adjudication
George Kirikos: Is this document accurate on the different degrees of "consensus" in a PDP? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf[icann.org] (might be outdated)
Paul Tattersfield: George's audio isn't very clear here
George Kirikos: Sorry, Paul. Are we at "consensus", if there are just one or two people against Option 1?
George Kirikos: i.e. "full consensus" vs. "rough consensus" vs. "consensus" vs. .....
Paul Tattersfield: thanks George
George Kirikos: +1 Jay
Mary Wong: We can say consensus (without the word rough), and ask for specific objections from the list?
Mary Wong: Consensus in the WG Guidelines = where most agree, and only a small minority disagree.
George Kirikos: I don't see it as intolerable situation for the IGO --- if the UDRP didn't exist, they would have had to waive immunity. Sending it back to arbitration (with all its weaknesses) is less fair, given they routinely get it wrong.
Mary Wong: @Phil, note that the UNCITRAL Rules don't limit the venue/arbitrator/entity to any particular provider.
Mary Wong: (that's why we wanted to highlight the distinction between specifying the arbitration entity and the applicable rules for an arbitration)
Paul Tattersfield: Human rights came up in the RMP WG, could be relevant here as with a biased arbitration a right to be fairly heard would be have been denied
George Kirikos: Footnote 2 of the document I linked to said explicitly: " It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term “Consensus” as this may have legal implications."
George Kirikos: (sorry for the formatting)
George Kirikos: Vitiating the UDRP/URS decision, though, preserves the "status quo" (i.e. as if the UDRP didn't happen), in the event that the court somehow finds that the waiver was insufficient to overturn the immunity.
Paul Tattersfield: An aside: The new font in this chat window is not as clear as the previous chatroom
Mary Wong: @Paul T, we just increased the font size - does that help?
Paul Tattersfield: yes seems clearer not any larger which is good
Paul Tattersfield: thanks :)
George Kirikos: Some additional articles on forced arbitration: http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/eliminating-forced-arbitration[afj.org]
George Kirikos: And additional reading: http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=7332[citizen.org]
Mary Wong: @Petter, yes, we will likely reword this para on consensus.
George Kirikos: Not "full consensus", but we have reached "consensus".
George Kirikos: (since that's the PDP guidelines)
Philip Corwin: Question for staff: Under WG procedures, what level of consensus is required to adopt a recoimmendation in the FINAL report? Thanks
Jay Chapman: a second bite at the apple, yes Mary
Mary Wong: Thanks, Jay, for clarifying - we just wanted to be sure the WG is aware of and has considered this.
Jay Chapman: Thanks, Mary
George Kirikos: It's forum shopping.....the IGO isn't restricted from filing a complaint in court (rather than use the UDRP). But, strategically, they would choose the venue where the odds are skewed in their favour (UDRP, arbitration, etc.).
George Kirikos: The ability to have recourtse to the national courts isn't just a check on the IGO or the domain name registrant --- it's a check on the entire system of arbitration or UDRP (i.e. on the providers). Otherwise, there can be a permanent deviation from the laws of the various nations.
Jay Chapman: Very helpful - thanks, Mary
Mary Wong: You're (all) most welcome!
Paul Tattersfield: George +1 'a permanent deviation' or worse over time an increasing deviation
George Kirikos: +1 Phil
Jay Chapman: agree Phil
George Kirikos: At least a week for a thorough review.
Paul Tattersfield: agrree Phil 2 weeks would be better
George Kirikos: (Paul Keating did a first pass, but I know I haven't done as much as I wanted, given it was always changing)
George Kirikos: (as did Petter)
Philip Corwin: Section 6 is cl;eaely most important, and if were are unable to issue complete draft report pre-Hyderabad we should probably put out Section 6 draft to focus discussion in Hyderabad. On that, do we know yet when this WG will meet there?
George Kirikos: Bye folks.
Mary Wong: Agree, Phil - we will check on the actual WG meeting time and day.
Philip Corwin: That helps Mary, and is along the lines of what I just proposed.
Mary Wong: We've submitted a request so we should be on the official schedule for sure.
Jay Chapman: Thanks, everyone. Progress continues!
Paul Tattersfield: thanks all bye
Philip Corwin: I will chair next week
Philip Corwin: Bye all
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp